An Idea to Get the Developer's Attention

[Classic55]

Simply put our Commissioners pass legislation that places a $1,000 impact fee per month per apartment on any apartments built on the Hacienda County Club site. Those impact fees distributed to owners in the Hacienda Village to make up for loss in property value due to the taking of value of property due to the loss of that community facility.

[Stu from NYC]

Sorry dont think that would happen.

[Bogie Shooter]

Simply put our Commissioners pass legislation that places a $1,000 impact fee per month per apartment on any apartments built on the Hacienda County Club site. Those impact fees distributed to owners in the Hacienda Village to make up for loss in property value due to the taking of value of property due to the loss of that community facility.

:1rotfl::1rotfl:

[davem4616]

dream on...will NEVER happen

this isn't the sixties where a college sit in will result in the administration caving in

[JSR22]

Never will happen!

[billethkid]

I hear the Rod Serling theme in the air....twilight zone!!

[Number 10 GI]

That must be some good weed you have there, willing to share?

[Marathon Man]

Simply put our Commissioners pass legislation that places a $1,000 impact fee per month per apartment on any apartments built on the Hacienda County Club site. Those impact fees distributed to owners in the Hacienda Village to make up for loss in property value due to the taking of value of property due to the loss of that community facility.

And if the property values go up, then the owners in Hacienda Village pay into a fund that goes to the developer of the apartments?

[tophcfa]

Appreciate the thought, but will never happen. The only way to get their attention is to not spend any $$$ that goes to their bottom line. That is next to impossible if one lives here since they control almost everything.

[justjim]

Seriously doubt your idea would be legal.

[JohnN]

good luck with that one

[John41]

Good idea. could work if real estate appraisers estimate the loss in property value which should go into your reduced property tax basis also. It certainly is a taking of value to benefit the developer.

[Northwoods]

And if the property values go up, then the owners in Hacienda Village pay into a fund that goes to the developer of the apartments?

I like this idea.
Hacienda Hills CC was shut down after repeated health code violations. There wasn't a restauranteur that saw the benefit of refurbishing the building and opening a restaurant. (Unlike Lopez). The Developer saw no benefit to refurbishing the restaurant... it just wasn't making a profit.
So now you have a plot of land. For those people that feel they were promised a "country club" restaurant and pool... it appears you can have that. But it comes with apartments. For those people who don't want apartments... well... you need to give up the argument that you were promised a restaurant and pool.

[merrymini]

Certainly a threat to anyone who purchased property with a view of the country club. One which could not have been anticipated. The developer has an enormous amount of power, aside from the fact that this is their property, with county officials and the people who serve the community that have close ties to them. Power that other individuals cannot match.

[Marathon Man]

Certainly a threat to anyone who purchased property with a view of the country club. One which could not have been anticipated. The developer has an enormous amount of power, aside from the fact that this is their property, with county officials and the people who serve the community that have close ties to them. Power that other individuals cannot match.

Which houses have a view of a country club? There are several homes that have golf course views - that is not changing. Why would anyone want a property that looks at a building?

[bilcon]

Why wouldn't the Counties support them. Think of all the jobs, taxes, and other benefits TV have have brought to the three counties, especially Sumter.

[Indydealmaker]

Simply put our Commissioners pass legislation that places a $1,000 impact fee per month per apartment on any apartments built on the Hacienda County Club site. Those impact fees distributed to owners in the Hacienda Village to make up for loss in property value due to the taking of value of property due to the loss of that community facility.
There are no homes adjacent to the apartment site. Why would property values decline?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I think there should be an impact fee per unit, but not per month. Those are supposedly one-time fees. But they're usually on the building, and that's based (theoretically) on the notion that each building is a one-family dwelling. This is a multi-family apartment building, and should have its impact fee reflect each unit, rather than the building as a single unit.

No idea if that's what they're intending anyway but if they're not, they should.

[Mfrench]

Excellent idea!!!

[timjones]

Simply put our Commissioners pass legislation that places a $1,000 impact fee per month per apartment on any apartments built on the Hacienda County Club site. Those impact fees distributed to owners in the Hacienda Village to make up for loss in property value due to the taking of value of property due to the loss of that community facility.

Don't think that type of impact fee would pass muster with taxation laws.

However I do wonder about the bond.

All residential land is apportioned a cost of building that district's infrastructure. The Country Club was not in the district, but now it has been accepted into the district. Upon entry into the district will the apartment building be required to pay its fair share for the initial cost of building the infrastructure?

Seem to me they should, if not then the apartment building is getting a free ride at least in this respect.

I don't know whether they are or not, but I have seen no mention of it so I suspect its a free ride.

[Northwoods]

Simply put our Commissioners pass legislation that places a $1,000 impact fee per month per apartment on any apartments built on the Hacienda County Club site. Those impact fees distributed to owners in the Hacienda Village to make up for loss in property value due to the taking of value of property due to the loss of that community facility.

The value of my home has increased over $100,000 in the 6 years I've lived here. I would say that is because of the vision of The Developer and what they've built. So... if I sell my home would I also owe the Developer a portion of my profit because it was their vision and lifestyle that resulted in my profit??

[Goldwingnut]

Don't think that type of impact fee would pass muster with taxation laws.

However I do wonder about the bond.

All residential land is apportioned a cost of building that district's infrastructure. The Country Club was not in the district, but now it has been accepted into the district. Upon entry into the district will the apartment building be required to pay its fair share for the initial cost of building the infrastructure?

Seem to me they should, if not then the apartment building is getting a free ride at least in this respect.

I don't know whether they are or not, but I have seen no mention of it so I suspect its a free ride.


The businesses and other non-residential properties pay their share of the initial infrastructure construction costs when they were built. They paid these costs in full at the time of construction and didn't have/want the luxury of a bond to defray these costs over time that private residents have. If additional infrastructure is required to support the apartments then that would be paid for during their construction by the build developers, as these always are.

The apartments are not getting a "free ride", the costs were paid long ago when the initial establishment was built at that location. Using the your logic, if someone builds a pool or an expansion to their house then they should be assessed an additional bond assessment even if they've paid the development bond in full on their home, after all the pool will put additional load on the water supply system because of the daily makeup water requirements and the home expansion will require additional electricity be delivered to the home.

[Goldwingnut]

I think there should be an impact fee per unit, but not per month. Those are supposedly one-time fees. But they're usually on the building, and that's based (theoretically) on the notion that each building is a one-family dwelling. This is a multi-family apartment building, and should have its impact fee reflect each unit, rather than the building as a single unit.

No idea if that's what they're intending anyway but if they're not, they should.

It is per Dwelling Unit that the impact fee is charged, the amount is based on the height of the building. Here's the county code that identifies these costs. These numbers have not been updated to the higher rates that went into effect on 1 October 2020, but the information is still valid.

Municode Library (https://library.municode.com/FL/sumter_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COCO_CH20ROBR_ARTIIIROIM FE_DIV4IMFESC_S20-66FESC)

[timjones]

The businesses and other non-residential properties pay their share of the initial infrastructure construction costs when they were built. They paid these costs in full at the time of construction and didn't have/want the luxury of a bond to defray these costs over time that private residents have.

Thanks for replying - I appreciate your detailed understanding of such matters. Much of what I have learned about TV has come from you and your videos (much thanks to you for that as well).

Form you, and from the Districts maps, I understand the commercial properties are not part of a residential CDD, but rather are within a separate commercial CDD. This is the pivot point of my speculation (yes I readily admit to speculating - that's all that suspicion is).

So are the commercial properties within a residential CDD or not?

Is it true or false that only property within residential CDD pays for that CDD initial infrastructure build? Or does the commercial properties pay for building pools, tennis courts etc.? I understand they do not. I look forward to being corrected (especially by you GoldWingNut), as I really dislike living with false information in my head.

Thanks

[Goldwingnut]

Thanks for replying - I appreciate your detailed understanding of such matters. Much of what I have learned about TV has come from you and your videos (much thanks to you for that as well).

Form you, and from the Districts maps, I understand the commercial properties are not part of a residential CDD, but rather are within a separate commercial CDD. This is the pivot point of my speculation (yes I readily admit to speculating - that's all that suspicion is).

So are the commercial properties within a residential CDD or not?

Is it true or false that only property within residential CDD pays for that CDD initial infrastructure build? Or does the commercial properties pay for building pools, tennis courts etc.? I understand they do not. I look forward to being corrected (especially by you GoldWingNut), as I really dislike living with false information in my head.

Thanks

Interesting and very thoughtful questions timjones. There are a lot of moving pieces in the puzzle that may be best answered by giving a few examples.

Example 1 - Commercial property in a town square - these properties are a part of a non-residential CDD (BWCDD, SLCDD, or VCCDD), these properties pay for their infrastructure costs upfront for the commercial CDD. These costs do not impact the residential CDD costs. Of course, these properties are owned by the developer, so they are paying the costs to themselves, in other words it's just a part of building the buildings.

Example 2 - Commercial property outside a town square - think Colony Plaza, Pinellas Plaza, Lake Deaton Plaza, Magnolia Plaza, etc. Just like in example 1 the costs are paid upfront and do not impact the residential CDD costs. Also, just like example 1 these properties are also owned by the developer, so they absorb the cost as a part of the building. The exception to this would be property they don't lease but in fact see to the tenant business, the only ones I can think of for this is some of the gas stations in The Villages (they don't have to deal with the EPA, the property owner does), here they would recoup some of the costs when they sell the property.

Example 3 - Commercial property within the residential areas. These aren't actually in the residential CDDs or a commercial CDD they are surrounded by the residential CDDs and are just in the county or city, these are areas like the Championship golf courses. These again are commercial private property and will have to pay for the infrastructure costs just like the previous examples. Also just like in the previous examples, you guessed it, the developer owns these properties.

Example 4 - Amenities - Rec Centers, postal stations, swimming pools, executive golf courses. tennis courts, etc. These seem complicated but they really aren't. If you look north of SR44 the SLCDD and VCCDD own all the amenities. If you were to try to map SLCDD you would see hundreds of locations between CR466 and SR44 intermixed with all the residential districts. But it's not quite so simple either, the amenities were once a part of a commercial business owned by, you guessed it, the developer. It is still this way south of SR44. The developer owns the rec centers like Everglades, Fenney, River Bend, the executive golf courses, and all the pools and other amenities. The Amenity fees in this area are paid to the developer who then pays the District recreation department to operate them, they also have to pay utilities, property taxes (yes they felt the 25% bump last year too), and pay the cost for building the properties, and in the end they try to clear a profit (the whole point of doing all the work to start with).

In all of the above examples the costs for the infrastructure is covered by the landowners of the businesses during construction, not the residential CDD bonds.

The last part of the equation is the Residential CDDs - this is the properties where all the homes sit, the streets, utilities, drainage systems, retention ponds, multi-modal paths, and common/green spaces in each of the residential districts (in CDD-13 this would also include 3 or 4 new bridges). These costs are covered in a bond issued by the residential/numbered CDD and divided among the home buyers (see my video Bond Information and The Villages 5-30-19 Construction update - YouTube (https://youtu.be/nGwf7AcmyEI) for details).

In all it is a bookkeeping exercise of phenomenal proportions to ensure the right entity gets billed the right amount and only pays for the infrastructure they are responsible for. The bonds the residents pay DO NOT pay for the infrastructure costs of the commercial properties or the recreation facilities.

If you try to look at the big picture it is very confusing but if you start taking it one piece at a time it's not too hard to understand, there are just a lot of pieces to track.

Hope this helped a little, if not, I'll try to explain it again.