View Single Post
 
Old 12-19-2012, 08:39 PM
ijusluvit ijusluvit is offline
Platinum member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,688
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdV View Post
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.
Thank you for your answers! My 'non-expert' understanding is that your comments regarding my questions 1, 3 & 4 are correct.

My second question was whether it is a fact that the Developer has used amenity funds from Center, Sumpter or any other district to pay any legal fees related to the IRS matter.

Does anyone see any District budget line devoted to legal fees?

I don't understand how it might be "logical", as you put it, that the two districts would pay those fees. My "logic" says the Developer would pay the fees out of pocket because either because amenity fees cannot generally be used that way, and/or because he initiated the bond procedure leading to the challenge.