With all three county commissions finally approving the straw ballot wording, the fight for the hearts and minds of Villagers begins. 

While the developer stated that he would let the residents decide if they wanted voting control of the way their amenities fees were being administered, his minions are hard at work trying to scare the residents into maintaining the status quo.

It started with a VNN banner on the bottom of the TV screen indicating that if the change to a resident-elected board occurred, amenity fees might change (i.e. an implied increase).  Since amenity fees are based on a “contractual” agreement, the fees will be the same no matter who makes up the governing board.  We view this as a basic effort to scare residents about changing to something new.

A recent letter to the editor in the Daily Sun questioned the qualifications of residents compared to the current VCCDD board.  The writer thinks that residents “do not have the experience, desire or energy” to do the job.

Residents need only to look at the successes of the resident-elected District 4 board (which has managed to turn around the onerous agreements entered into by the previous developer-elected board, thus freeing residents of financial obligations they never should have had) to see that we do have capable and dedicated residents.

We don’t think anyone should underestimate the experience, desire or energy of the residents of The Villages.  And no one should underestimate our Villager’s commitment to contribute their time and energy to their community.

Residents were encouraged to contact the VHA for answers to straw ballot questions. The VHA insists it is neutral on the straw ballot issue, yet its published answers were clearly slanted toward maintaining the status quo.

For example, on question one regarding who makes the decisions now, the VHA tried to enhance the reputation of the current VCCDD supervisors by calling them “businessmen,” but  neglected to mention that all are employees, business associates, or friends of the developer in what we consider a conflict of interests situation. 

The VHA answer also forgot to point out that the VCCDD supervisor who was a “previous community development district manager” was and is employed by the developer as a vice president, and he has been organizing development districts for the benefit of developers throughout Florida for over 30 years.  Mr. Gary Moyer is the architect of the Center District arrangement that gives the developer total control of the amenities that the residents pay for.  This is the same Gary Moyer who was the District Manager for District 4 when the onerous CR42 landscape agreement and the storm water pond easement agreement were put in place, to the detriment of residents. 

While Chapter 190, the Florida law that established and continues to regulate CDD activities, provides a special exemption from conflict of interests statues that allows a developer to put himself and his employees on development district boards, there is no guarantee that they will act in the best interests of current and future residents.  We think the VCCDD history shows just the opposite.

Consider the recent VCCDD-passed Activity Policy that severely restricted our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and required a $1 million insurance policy for any demonstration of more than two people?  Thankfully, the VCCDD rescinded the policy after an outcry from residents.  You have to think that a resident-elected board would not be as foolish or disrespectful of Residents’ Rights.

On question two the VHA response was: “There is no guarantee that a resident-elected board will continue to provide the same programs and services in the future as past VCCDD boards have provided.” 

There is clearly no guarantee that the VCCDD board will continue to provide any particular programs or services either.  There are a number of programs and services that the current board has decided to discontinue.  We no longer have pool monitors at most pools.  We have had a reduction in Neighborhood Watch services.  Along the residential roads within your district, look at how much better maintained the grass and shrubbery are for the frontage maintained by your numbered district compared to the road frontage (for the executive golf courses) maintained by the Center District.

Hopefully these VCCDD reductions in services and lack of attention to the basic need to plan for long-term facility maintenance will NOT be continued by a new resident-elected board in the future.

On the question about an independent audit, the VHA response should have pointed out that the Management’s Discussion and Analysis section of the most recent outside audit, by KPMG, a major national accounting firm, stated that the VCCDD financial position was deteriorating (a year-to-year decrease in net assets).  Liabilities exceeded assets by $3.2 million as of September 30, 2005, while liabilities exceeded assets by only $492,000 at September 30, 2004 (and this is BEFORE the borrowing of the $4 million to renovate the Paradise Center).

There are no guarantees that residents will ever get another opportunity to decide who should control the spending of their amenity fees.  And, if the straw vote is not successful at this time, there is a basic uncertainty regarding the developer’s intentions over the next few years.  We have no way of knowing who might be the commercial landowner in the years to come.  If the developer were to sell his holdings of commercial properties in the downtown areas, we might find a new owner with voting control of the VCCDD and no experience with our community.  We could be worse off with some outsider as the main landowner and decision-maker in our community.

The offer to allow this non-binding straw ballot can only come from the owner of the commercial property in the VCCDD.  Thus, residents need to make an informed decision now and they need to be provided with ALL the facts.

It seems clear that one or more employees of the VCCDD/developer, who have a vested interest in the result of the straw ballot, prepared the answers provided by the VHA.

If the VHA is to be neutral, it has an obligation to be TOTALLY honest and these answers should not be published without the addition of factual information germane to the subject of the question.  Claiming neutrality IS NOT acceptable when the underlying objective is lobbying for the status quo.

If the developer is sincere in his offer to let the residents decide, then he should call off his employees and support organizations like the VHA and let the facts come out in an unbiased fashion.  There is no question he has the ability to influence public opinion through his control of the local media (TV, radio and newspaper).  The issue needs to be decided by the residents, based on a balanced analysis of the facts. 

Reprinted below and in the columns on the right is the Disclosure Reform bill that we plan to submit again to the Florida Legislature for consideration in the next session.

The current disclosure language given to buyers at the time of home purchase in a CDD is in Section 190.048 Florida Statutes.  The section is inadequate and should be revised.  Revisions should apply to any sale of a CDD property by a developer or its agents.

There are several issues that need to be part of a comprehensive Disclosure Reform bill as follows:

1. Timing of Disclosure - The currently-required Disclosure is often given to potential buyers too late in the buyer’s decision-making process, or often delayed until the time of closing, or afterwards.  The Disclosure should be given to a prospective purchaser: (a) no less than ten (10) business days prior to closing; or, (b) at an earlier date when the buyer first exhibits serious interest in a property; and, (c) updated at least three (3) business days prior to closing.

2. Receipt for Disclosure - Buyers often complain that the currently-required Disclosure was never given or was delivered after closing.  A developer or its agents should be required to obtain a signed and dated receipt from a potential buyer indicating when the Disclosure was delivered.

3. Separate Sheet of Paper - The currently-required Disclosure is often buried in other lengthy closing documents.  The Disclosure should be on separate sheets of paper, clearly identified.

4. Dollar Specifics - The currently-required Disclosure is not comprehensive and specific as to dollar amounts.  The Disclosure should contain reasonable estimates of the dollar amounts for the first three (3) years for each tax, assessment, and/or monthly fee.  Any bond obligations to be assumed by individual residents, the related interest rates, and repayment options should also be identified. 

The Villages overstepped its authority by trying to impose its own rules in a state election.  The Villages decided that no political signs could be placed in the ground at a polling site within The Villages area.

Mr. Hugh Gibson, Florida State Representative for our area, said that if re-elected in November, he is willing to introduce the Disclosure Reform bill in the Legislature.

There are 24 lined ("wet") ponds and 6 unlined ("dry") ponds in District 4.  One of the 6 dry ponds is located on the south side of Sherwood Villas.  The other 5 are spaced along the eastern boundary of the district.  All 6 dry ponds are on District 4 property and maintained by District 4. 

Of the 24 wet ponds, District 4 has maintenance responsibility for six of them.  Two are on District 4 land (Sweetwater, which is behind and east of Publix near the Mayfield Villas and Fairlawn which is on the south east corner of Buena Vista and Belle Meade, near the Fairlawn Villas). 

There is a maintenance agreement obligating District 4 to maintain two ponds on a Center District golf course (Woodbury and Wisteria, both located on the Walnut Grove golf course, just north of the FPC-SECO substation on Belle Meade).  That agreement also obligates District 4 to maintain the Springdale pond located on the developer owned Nancy Lopez golf course (Erinn Glenn), just west of the Springdale pool on Belle Meade. 

The sixth pond that District 4 is obligated by maintenance agreement to maintain is Mulberry Lake which is located across the street from the Mulberry recreation center, just south of the Forsyth and Birchbrook Villas.  The northern portion of Mulberry Lake is on District 4 land while the southern portion is on the developer owned Nancy Lopez golf course (Ashley Meadows).  The District is obligated to maintain the entire pond.

There are 18 wet ponds that the district does not have maintenance responsibility for and they are scattered across the Nancy Lopez, Walnut Grove, Amberwood and Oakleigh golf courses.  Seven are on Center District land and 11 are on developer owned land.

Please find below my thoughts and concerns regarding this very important vote on how The Villages north of 466 should be managed in the future.

The present arrangement whereby only registered voters can partake in this Straw Poll is in my mind totally unfair, as all residents/homeowners will not be able to vote.

We have many residents that only live here 6 months of the year, due to immigration controls on homeowners from countries such as Canada, UK, Germany, etc.  They pay their property taxes and amenities charges year round.

Also, we have full year residents who for one or more reasons are not citizens, these would be Green Card holders.  They also pay their taxes and amenity charges year round.

We also have people who have second  homes, one up North and one here in the Villages, again paying taxes and amenity charges year round.

If you want this straw vote to be fair and equitable, all residents/homeowners should have the right to vote.

We all know that the Golf Cart trails north of 466 along Buena Vista Blvd. and east along El Camino Real are bumpy and too narrow.  A method has not been determined to generate the dollars required to re-pave and widen these cart paths.