An official has pointed to the lighthouse at Lake Sumter Landing as a symbol of the underlying problem with the Project Wide Advisory Committee.
“The lighthouse is an adornment of the commercial district. It is designed to enhance the commercial district. Should the residents be paying for that?” asked Supervisor Reed Panos at Friday morning’s meeting of the Community Development District 5 Board of Supervisors.
Many residents of The Villages may not realize that some of the most visible attractions of Florida’s Friendliest Hometown are owned and maintained by residents. Those include the lighthouse, the welcome signs, the floating boat dock and attached gazebo at Lake Sumter Landing as well as Market Square at Lake Sumter Landing and Paddock Square at Brownwood.
Panos pointed out that CDD 5 is paying 11 percent of the total budget of PWAC, which unites CDDs south of County Road 466 to share in infrastructure costs and the oversight of the amenity budget.
“The commercial districts are not paying their fair share. Essentially, PWAC is a boondoggle for the benefit of the commercial districts,” said the Village of Sunset Pointe resident.
He said the ornamental lighthouse, which is a key feature of Lake Sumter Landing and the Lighthouse Point Bar & Grill restaurant, is critical to the identity and prosperity of that commercial district.
“What happens when that lighthouse starts to crumble? Should we rebuild it or let it go?” asked Panos.
PWAC funds the maintenance, powerwashing and painting of the lighthouse. In 2019, eyebrows were raised when PWAC approved a budget which included $63,500 to replace rotting wood at the entryway to Brownwood Paddock Square.
While CDD 5 residents fund 11 percent of PWAC’s budget, the commercial districts pay about 2 percent.
Panos said that the result is that the commercial districts receive maintenance at greatly reduced costs.
That relationship is a hot topic as PWAC is being asked to approve an agreement that will allow CDDs 12 and 13 to split off and form PWAC II. A CDD 12 supervisor proposed the idea, which has been fueled by the major differences in infrastructure south of State Road 44, including the golf cart bridges, the style of the pedestrian paths and the shallower ponds with bubblers.
The amount paid by each district into PWAC is determined by the amount of assessable acreage. Large residential districts are responsible for larger percentages of the PWAC budget than the much smaller commercial districts.
However, Supervisor Gerald Ferlisi found a problem with that formula. He pointed out that the parking lots in the commercial districts are not included in assessable acreage as they are considered “government” property.
“It makes no sense to me that the parking lots are not included in the assessable acreage,” Ferslisi said.
All CDDs that are part of PWAC must approve a new 10-year agreement that will allow for the formation of PWAC II in order for that to come to fruition. If any of the signatories of the previous agreement don’t approve it, PWAC II will not be formed.
CDD 7 potentially holds a trump card that could block PWAC II. The chairman of the CDD 7 board has been highly critical of the existing PWAC agreement and contends it surrenders too much power to the commercial districts. He is hoping to change the language in the new agreement in order to take power away from the commercial districts and return it to the residents.
The deadline for the new agreement is Aug. 31. CDDs will be voting on it at their August meetings.
