Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeod
I am in no way involved in the process of setting fees. Part of this discussion is apparently semantics. You call the $51K figure debt where I would term it a financial obligation that involves both debt and service fees for use of the facilities.
While the original homeowners had relatively low amenities fees, as these properties changed hands the fees were automatically raised to the same level as new home purchasers. Thus the amenity stream was enhanced. While the amount the fee can be raised each year is capped, there is no such cap on the fee paid by the purchaser of a new or resale home. Thus, the amenity stream can be increased without violating the cap. I believe the fee will be calculated to ensure sufficient funds to cover both debt and maintenance/refurbishment.
|
Ok. Thanks.
I obtained the bulk of my information from here.
Village Community Development Districts There is a wealth of information. Not only the IRS but also TV representatives and the group that did the initial estimates for TV.
It is my understanding that the bonds for the facilities are an obligation, above and beyond the cost to maintain the facilities.
I used the amenity fee as an approximation to calculate the obligation per home after all facilities purchases were made, bonds issued. It’s a method of projection/extrapolation.
Initially, it appears and it is logical, that the bulk of the amenity fee will be used for facility maintenance, operation, developer's expenses, etc. But as more facilities are purchased it appears that more of the amenity fee will go for debt maintenance.
The amenity fee, for home sales, may be raised, but as I see it, that ability to compensate will diminish as sales slow (e.g. build-out, etc.) and rec facilities purchases/bond issue accelerate.
Therefore, at some point in the future a general increase in the amenity fee may be needed. If the IRS prevails that point may accelerate in time. If you have any question concerning the cap you might want to read the amendment clause in your Declaration of Restrictions. It seems from the language that any clause in the declaration can be changed unilaterally.
I did this exercise to determine my course of action, and shared it with others to determine if there was any logic in my thinking. In no way am I saying that this analysis can be relied upon (read disclaimer here). It is only as good as the information I have and my ability to perform analysis on that information.
I do quite a bit of analysis before I reach a personal decision. And I still make mistakes.
For me, I’m looking at buying a $350,000 designer with a $51,000 rec facility bond requirement, and if new, with a $30,000 infrastructure bond. Therefore I will be obligated for $431,000 plus fees (amenity), taxes, etc.
My 7 month stay in TV starting in April will help me make the determination on whether this is something I want to do.
Thanks for the interaction.