View Single Post
 
Old 12-19-2012, 04:52 PM
EdV's Avatar
EdV EdV is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Village of Stonecrest
Posts: 1,122
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ijusluvit View Post
.. but I still have a few of questions:

1) Amenity fee receipts and expenditures are now public information in Districts 1-4. Is that the case in the newer districts?

2) Is the Developer in fact using amenity fee funds to pay for the legal fees in the IRS case?

3) If so, are these amenity fees presently coming from all districts, including Districts 1-4, or just the two districts whose bonding procedures are being challenged?

4) Yes our contract says the amenities will be maintained "properly" regardless of cost. But "properly" may be a term subject to broad interpretation. If the Developer decided his legal expenses were too high, could he decide to reduce amenity services to some degree and still be able to argue that he was meeting the contract terms?
1. All of the annual budgets for the numbered CDDs and the two special CDDs are posted on the TV District website.

2. The IRS case is against the two special CDDs so it would be logical that they would pay for the legal fees to challenge the IRS.

3. There is no connection whatsoever between the numbered CDD that your home is in and the two special CDDs. The annual maintenance fee that you pay to your numbered CDD covers the cost of maintaining common grounds within your numbered CDD.

4. Yes indeed. That is one possibility. But remember that when something like that happened a few years ago, some residents sued the VCCDD (north of 466) and an out of court settlement was reached to refund some 60 million from the developer back to that CDD of which some 13 million was used already to widen the cart paths north of 466. In other words, precedent has been established in favor of the residents should that occur again.
__________________
Formerly EdVinMass