[outlaw]

[QUOTE=Advogado;1110656]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Warren said that you are 100% correct. I would put your percentage at about 80%, but you do get the gist of the situation.

Let me explain further:

1. Categories of Community Development District There are two categories of CDDs in The Villages: (a) The numbered Districts, which encompass all the residences, and (b) the three commercial Districts, which encompass the three town-square areas. Thus, the three commercial districts are the Village Center Community Development District ("VCCDD"), the Sumter Landing Community Development District ("SLCDD"), and the Brownwood Community Development Disrict.
2. The Amenity Authority Committee.The AAC is affiliated only with the VCCDD. Contrary to your post, the AAC not only administers the $40 million class-action settlement funds, but also all the amenity expenditures by that District.
3. Ownership of the Amenities. The Developer has sold all the amenities north of 466 to the VCCDD and some of the amenities south of 466 to the SLCDD. The Developer stopped the sales as a result of the IRS investigation, and therefore still owns many of the amenity facilities south of 466. Since the commercial districts are now prohibited from issuing any more tax-exempt bonds, it is unclear whether the Developer will continue to sell the amenity facilities south of 466 (and the right to receive the amenity fees) to the relevant commercial district or will simply retain those facilities and the amenity fees.
4. Ownership of property in the commercial districts.The Developer (which is a corporation called "The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc.") has sold off some of the properties within the commercial districts but still remains in control of the government of those districts. The developer control of those districts is the basis for the IRS's denying future issuance of tax-exempt bonds.

I hope this helps clarify a very complex situation.

Thanks for the further clarification. I'm surprised the developer sold any of the commercial property. Do you know if this action was necessary to attract certain chains that insist on "owning" their business property?