It has been brought to the attention of Villages residents that, “owing to an actuarial projection of expenditures exceeding income within the next five years, the need to remove the cap on amenity fees is going to be necessary.” No matter what decision is made concerning this issue, even if it’s no decision at all, it is guaranteed to offend someone.
This financial projection is somewhat troubling, especially since residents are charged additional amenity charges such as trail fees for use of executive golf course. The Developer (The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc.) has already jumped the shark by moving the base fee to $159 on new and re-sale homes. There are a number of a possible solutions to remedy this dilemma in lieu of removing the cap. However, take careful note, that if this cap is breached, it essentially guarantees a continuum of future raises in amenity fees. I posit one possible solution, as fairer and a more effective remedy is to “utilize user fees.” Here is the rationale for this suggestion.
While reading, residents may want to remove the euphemism “amenity fee” and call it what it is “a tax.” And, as a tax, taxpayers demand fairness, while those in power will predictably claim the high moral ground, presenting skewed actuarial supporting evidence of why a tax must be raised, which in actuality translates to being the most expedient why to get the problem off their desks. Here I am addressing the need to thoroughly discuss cause and effect.
The Project Wide Advisory Committee, the Amenity Authority Committee, et al along with the Developer speak of entering a “contractual agreement”, when purchasing a home, to pay contractual amenity fees (taxes). This very statement, in my opinion, can be the Developer’s undoing. The “contractual agreement” in question is actually a “contract of adhesion” and as such is heavily restricted to homeowners but, favoring the Developer. It implies a grave inequality of bargaining power for homeowners. The likelihood of successfully challenging this contract in court I leave to attorneys but, since adherence by residents is demanded by the Developer it follows that a demand of strict adherence by both signatories to this contract is in order.
The Developer may have granted access to amenities to other than Villages property owners (Freedom Pointe is an earlier example.).And since such agreements/arrangement are all made out of sight to Village residents, they are at a loss of knowing, if not, or if so, how many such arrangements have been made, if a financial consideration was discussed and with whom the Developer had such discussions?
This is of paramount importance when as previously noted the contractual agreement in question is a contract of adhesion. Again, as a one-sided contract it does not favorably inure to residents; especially given that any desired action by a resident, as relates to economic elasticity, etc. is not available.
The contractual agreement between the homeowner, whether full time or part time, and Developer stipulates that amenities are available predicated on 1) purchasing a home whether as full time or part time resident and 2) agreeing to pay amenity fees.
My reasoned proposal is not personal but business, and one of pure mathematics which underscores [a] cause for this unfortunate financial discussion. We have no idea how many people ride free on one property owner’s amenity fee or otherwise game the system but, it is its own worse kept secret? You can be sure that some residents will muddle this issue with their basic concept of invented rights. Irrespective, of whose truth you believe the end result is the same, over-crowding causing a direct and compromising effect on use and maintenance of our recreational facilities.
To solidify my position concerning this two-party contract consider the following. The Villages Water Utility with Developer influence on its Board of Directors, based their average rate of usage on a household containing two people.Consequently, if that average usage is exceeded, residents are subjected to a graduated user rate relative to their additional usage. I submit the amenity fee when initially calculated also made their assumption of two people per household.
From the initial building of The Villages the call has been to end the built out. While I take no issue with the Developer’s right (business is business), it never had any thought of ever ending its’ building nor cared about the adverse effect it would cause previous buyers. As a consequence, The Village has moved from a 55+ retirement community to a vacation destination and all one has to do is google “The Villages” and advertisements are replete with rental information. This has had an adverse effect within The Villages
There are, to my knowledge, no legal remedies available to residents to call for ending this rapid expansion, not even a call for a moratorium, to assess its adverse impact. And, while it would be beneficial to the retirement community to prohibit renting it won’t happen because residents have no voting power. Realistically, the situation in question is only going to worsen as the building continues, creating more competing voices for the same resources.
The original marketing information, understanding and arrangement was that the base amenity rate was predicated on a two-member household whether they resided here full time or not. Since homeowners relied on this marketing information the PWAC and AAC, et al must demand the contractual agreement of an initial base with a CPI, to the cap of $155 for a household of two, remains non-negotiable, that is never breached. I would suggest that the PWAC, AAC, et al demand a “usage rate” for all but the two-member household as identified on the Home Deed.
Succinctly stated, too many people are riding free, on one amenity fee, and it is unfair, unjust and it will create an economical burden to residents, most of whom live on a fixed income. The amenity fee was actuarial predicated on a two-member household. The original intended use of recreational facilities was also based on a two- member household. Any suggestion of breaching this amenity agreement should be met with resistance as being non-negotiable. Once the contractual agreement to amenity fees is breached it will set precedent resulting in continual increases because residents have no say in preventing it. Any use of amenities above a two-member household, as identified on a Home Deed, should require user fees. User fees should be actuarially calculated to satisfy their successful contribution to realistic expenditure projections. This suggestion should be more than ample to meet the actuarial short fall being projected. By no means do I believe my suggestion is the only and best manner to resolve this claim of an expenditure short fall. However, I do hope it will be considered along with other residents’ suggestions. If nothing else is accomplished or believed here the PWAC AAC, etc. must resist a breach of this contractual agreement or we will all suffer the financial consequences. I opine, others can decide.
Dennis Petrucelli is a resident of the Village of Bonnybrook.