Home | Sarasota Meadows Blog

MCA Assessments & Reserves Explained

The following was posted by Richard Sommerfeld on the Meadows Bulletin Board Facebook page (a resident run Facebook group). We know everyone isn’t on that Facebook group so we are sharing it with our subscribers.

The PDF below explains the MCA’s assessments and reserves. It attempts to answer the questions raised by Susan Chapmen at the July Board meeting. The facts and statistics all come from MCA documents fellow residents have access to.

LINK to MCA Assessments and Reserves Explained

On a related note………

Total MCA Assessments have NOTHING to do with Property Values

Some people try to explain the increase in MCA assessments as being associated with increased property appraisels (including by the MCA Treasurer at the most recent Board meeting). That is nonsense (we expect that most saying it just don’t understanding how the MCA assessments work, but some may be intentionally misleading MCA Homeowners).

The above document (as well as our analysis from 14 months ago) is about TOTAL MCA assessments. These are what the MCA budgets it needs from MCA Homeowners to cover its expenses for the year. That has nothing to do with property appraisels.

Once the MCA figures out how much it has to raise from TOTAL MCA assessments, that TOTAL is then divided into 3,450 unequal pieces using property appraisels. So YOUR portion of the total is affected by when you bought and whether you are a Florida homesteader. In general, as appraisels increase your proportion doesn’t change (see Footnote 1 for an explanation of why the proportions (not the TOTAL) do vary).

TOTAL MCA assessments have nothing to do with changes in property appraisels. Don’t be fooled by anyone who says otherwise (and help them understand why that is not the case).

Footnote 1 – Florida property appraisel increases are capped to 3% for Florida homesteaders and 10% for others. These have an exponential affect when property values increase by more than that and the cap is utilized year after year. When a property is sold/bought, any previous reductions due to those caps are lost and the new owner’s appraisel is based on the full/current appraised value. That’s why appraisels often jump when there is a sale/purchase. It is common for a newly purchased condo to have an appraisel value that is double or more versus a near identical condo that has been held for a long time. But again, this has nothing to do with increases in TOTAL MCA assessments.

Posted

in

by

Website Admin

Tags:

Comments

8 responses to “MCA Assessments & Reserves Explained”

  1. FourTreesBlogging Avatar
    FourTreesBlogging

    First, thanks for the work put into this.

    Second, I’m hoping you can clarify something for me…
    I know that the care of the golf course property requires a lot of money – whether it’s to keep up a functional golf course, or to maintain the property as green space (a park or whatever it ultimately is). I believe the costs related to “non-golf” care (for lack of a better term) would run anywhere from $500,000 to $1.5 million.

    During the past several years while the golf club was still operating, the costs of care would have been paid by the golf club and not the MCA. If the golf club had “disappeared” in 2018, then the MCA and all the homeowners would have had to pay that cost.

    So my question/clarification request is: how is the above point (i.e. costs of care) reflected in your analysis?

    I’m not intending to challenge any of what you’ve done (at least not on this point). I’m just curious how you factor this in since I don’t see it specifically referred to.

    Thanks…

    Like

    Reply
    1. Website Admin Avatar
      Website Admin

      Interesting question.
      1. Private courses typically pay their own way. The post is trying to get at how much the community has been paying towards a private club.
      2. We think most MCA Homeowners would like for golf to remain a part of The Meadows, but in a self-sustaining way. We hope that the Board is able to find a solution which does that, and minimizes the risk of current green space being developed for housing.
      3. If the facilities had not been leased back to TMCC in 2018, the MCA Board would have likely pursued #2 above, so we believe your question is based on a false premise that the only alternative to TMCC operating the facilities was MCA operating it as maintained green space. This reflects a widely held belief that the golf courses (and tennis) cannot exist if TMCC did not exist.
      4. We are likely going to find out whether operating 54 holes is a viable business in the near future (in 2017 both TMCC leaders and MCA leaders (who were TMCC members) said that operating 54 holes made no sense….then continued to do so from 2018-2025). If it is not we will have to deal with decisions on what to do with the green space and the associated costs.
      5. Keep in mind that if golf continued, MCA was facing a bill of $10-15 million for overdue clubhouse and course repairs. In the last few years MCA has also spent more than $1.2 million over the last few years on capital expenditures that were under the radar (in addition to the $4 million MCLWF, half of which was a fitness center that was given to TMCC under the lease). TMCC was paying the operating costs of the golf courses, but certainly was not paying all the costs of the facilities. Not by a long shot.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  2. Joe Adamaitis Avatar
    Joe Adamaitis

    Exactly right!

    Like

    Reply
  3. IncrediblyAverage Avatar
    IncrediblyAverage

    This website has done a great service for the community. Now I understand why my annual MCA assessments have tripled in the past five years.
    Probably the only reason they stopped subsidizing TMCC is because of the information contained here for everyone to read and process what’s been going on for the past several years.
    Do you happen to know why the April, May and June 2025 BoD meeting minutes have been removed from the MCA website? They were there a few days ago and now they’re suddenly gone.

    Like

    Reply
  4. mitchw12 Avatar
    mitchw12

    so..are you saying 12 million$ was directed to the tmcc by perone and lazar?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Website Admin Avatar
      Website Admin

      $10 million has been spent to purchase the facilities (including the fitness center portion of MCLWC) and repair/replace it. $8 million has been spend on RAP fees, interest and other expenses incurred for TMCC’s benefit. Almost all of this was done or initiated when Jan Lazar was previously Treasurer and President. Little of those expenses have been incurred since Chris Perone became President.
      TMCC is now behind us, unfortunately there are some people insisting the cost to MCA was minimal and this post provides the details of why that isn’t true.

      Like

      Reply
      1. mitchw12 Avatar
        mitchw12

        what are RAP fees of 8 million

        Like

  5. mitchw12 Avatar
    mitchw12

    so.ypur sayong.that lazar was behind the money shuffle to tmcc and a tmcc member and made it untraceable to tell if the money was spent to residents benefit or just tmcc ? Is there an explanation as to why tmccc lease was next to zero for golf tennis fitness center?

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to mitchw12 Cancel reply