Our Village

Are we sure that this wasn't taken from a BOD meeting three or four years ago?? Not that you copied, Joey, it is just the same old same old with different names. Nothing really changes except for the dues going up and up. The same areas are still losing money. Most people dislike Armark, but yet they are still here. There is a certain element at LIV that does NOT want anything to change. I believe most people who run for the board do so to really help, but find out there is a brick wall they cannot get by and that is when the trouble starts.

The majority of owners put their heads in the sand and don't want to get involved, because those that disagree with them can and will cause them problems. So sad but true. I know because I tried.

One problem is that our BOD is too large at 9 members. Yes, I know that it is nearly impossible to change. And yes I know I don't have a good answer. I love my home and my little bit of LIV, but like so many others I have found that speaking out and trying to change things for the better doesn't work.

We must keep speaking out! We have heard at BOD meetings and read in the recent LIV newsletter about the summer people who are doing so much for the community and raising $ for it. Those are the same people who signed the request to change the BOD meetings to Sat at 1PM.These people care about LIV and want to attend BOD meetings and run for the BOD. They plan to retire here and are our future. Joey has a survey on the left about this issue, there were 40+ owners who signed for the change yet it was barely considered by the Directors with only 2 voting yes. Why are we putting up with a BOD that is not responsive to owner requests? Hopefully the new BOD will take this issue under considerstion and do what is best for the majority of owners, not themselves. Our annual meeting is Sat at 1PM for that reason. BEST time for most owners!

Our problem is a BOD that allows Aramark to run our community into financial disaster and serve only their own interests!We should all be voting on line for issues, we do not need 9 people to make decisions for us with todays technology.

Patty Ann & Eddie only BOD members to vote in favor of different meeting day. So, Valley owners the others just do not want y'all to attend meeting or even have the ability and time to run for the Board. Pay attention to the votes and do me fooled by what you thought was supporting BOD members w/Valley Owners. Please review these votes!

seems to be a little confusion on the golf course. do owners now play for free

No owners pay to play my husband and I buy a 6 month pass for $400 and play about 40 rounds of golf.About $10 per round

We purchase an annual membership for $650 and play a combined total of about 500 rounds per year. Do the math.
Anyone who thinks golf at our course is free is woefully ignorant of he facts.

But it should be for all OWNERS as we pay $2.10 MORE of our monthly dues to operate the pools than the golf course- so we should all get to play for free just like those who use the pool, tennis, game room, gym, etc.! Where is our GOLF Committee??????

If all owners played golf for free it seems reasonable to assume the monthly condo fees would increase to offset the loss in green fees revenue.
I realize the pool and the golf course are both ammenities, but no where is it written in stone that all ammenities are free.
The common sense approach would be to charge a fee where it makes sense and where it is feasible. This is a subjective decision and reasonable people can disagree.

Since the pool,tennis, shuffle board, pool hall, exercise room, owner's lounge, card rooms,etc. are amenities AND free, the precedent is set that all should be free!Let's hear it for NO FEE golf. If condo fees need to be raised to cover ALL amenities, so be it. Why have the golfers been singled out to bear an extra amenity fee????? OR- charge everyone to use a given amenity. I understand non residents even use our tennis courts for free. We could take back all the rentals that are legally ours and use that $ to cover the amenities(as it was probably designed AND in our bylaws). Or we could charge all rentals a significant amenity use fee. I am sure there are many good ideas out there but our powers that be are not taking care of OUR business!

Charge all renters an "aminity fee" that is included with
the rent, but noted separately. If they do not want to pay the included aminity fee they don't rent. Should the owners not want to pass the aminity fee on to their renters then they should pay it. LIV owners who do not rent their properties, for an extra income source, should not carry the renters. Harsh, maybe, but I am tired of the increased condo fees.

I agree 100% with the "aminity fee". I have been saying this for years!!! And remember, folks, this "amEnity fee" does not only cover the use of our pools, tennis courts, etc, etc, etc,...it also is an amenity to be in a gated community and have security. Renters should definately help cover the cost of the use and wear and tear of OUR facilities. I DO NOT feel renters should be "fee-ed" to death by paying multiple fees. Just pay one fee for each person entering the Village, a fee sufficient to cover real costs, give them a temporary type of wristband (one that has to be cut off to get it off), and turn them loose. Let this general "amenity fee" also cover the use of parking trailers, etc. It doesn't matter if a renter uses all the "amenities" or not.

If renters don't like the fee, let them go somewhere else. I assure you, if they have stayed here before and know LIV, they will be happy to pay because there is no where else they can get all we have to offer!