Talk of The Villages Florida - 400 million $$ amenities purchase

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)

- The Villages, Florida, General Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/)

- - 400 million $$ amenities purchase (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/400-million--amenities-purchase-214205/)

400 million $$ amenities purchase

All buildings and amenities in TV between rte 466 and 466A according to another website may be purchased from the developer. Does that mean all the upkeep & retrofit cost ie roofing, hvac, plumbing, electrical etc and the 400 million$ will now become the homeowners responsibility? I bring this up because I don't know and also because I am also surprised that I have not seen it on TOTV

We are purchasing the monthly income stream generated by the amenity fees for homes in this area for perpetuity. It puts The Villages one step closer to self management. Not that I think it is a good idea.

As long as we don't become a giant HOA/POA

I believe the only way the residents can get control is if the family decides to sell all the property in the town squares since the only people who can vote for representatives in the central CDDs (VCCDD and LSCDD) are the landowners in that CDD, which is the family. Residents can elect representatives in their residential CDD, but their power is very limited to that CDD only and has no control over amenities (south of 466, as the AAC has authority north of 466).

I expect/hope the revenue stream from our amenity fees will cover the purchase with sufficient surplus to address repair and renovation. This was, I believe, the main reason for the lawsuit and settlement that resulted in the AAC.

I believe that the purchaser is the Lake Sumter Landing Community Development District which is not us. Inheritance taxes/moves may have come into play.

The amenities are being transferred to the CDDs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricthemic (Post 1306255)

The amenities are being transferred/sold to the LSCDD, not the residential CDDs (CDD5-10) along with the revenue stream of our amenity fees. The district will have control instead of the developer, not a big difference, IMO. We've been sending our amenity fees to the developer instead of the district and the developer has been taking care of and constructing the amenities. Once the transfer is complete, the district will have control and the funds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoplanekid (Post 1306416)

I believe that the purchaser is the Lake Sumter Landing Community Development District which is not us. Inheritance taxes/moves may have come into play.

What do inheritance taxes have to do with it??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 1306503)

What do inheritance taxes have to do with it??

As it takes time and money to settle a huge estate (Mr. Gary Morse), some of the moneys garnered could be for this purpose. I base this solely on my experience with much, much smaller estates and as such is strictly conjecture in this instance.

Inheritance Taxes

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoplanekid (Post 1306416)

I believe that the purchaser is the Lake Sumter Landing Community Development District which is not us. Inheritance taxes/moves may have come into play.

Florida does not have any inheritance taxes. Where are you coming from with that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. Robinson (Post 1306574)

Florida does not have any inheritance taxes. Where are you coming from with that?

IRS Estate Tax which might be huge or small if "one doesn't want to pay their fair share". :icon_wink:

People should pay more than their fair share of taxes, they should never use any carry forward losses in order to increase the tax base to provide the funding necessary for Syrian immigrants to relocate to America and build them mosques.

Developing amenities and then selling them back to the CDD, has ALWAYS been a key component in the Developer's business model.

For those who don't really understand it (and it's pretty darned complicated), here's a relatively quick primer on how the whole thing works.

THE VILLAGES GOVERNMENT

Quote:

CDDs - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

CDDs (Community Development Districts) are special purpose taxing and residential development districts created in 1980 through passage of Chapter190, Florida State Statutes.

The purpose of the Chapter 190 law was and is to promote housing development through use of tax-free bonds that developers use to lower the cost of homes in these residential communities. Developers issue bonds to pay for initial infrastructure (clearing, grading, sewers, roads, water supply, utilities, etc.). The original construction bonds are assigned to the CDD's initial residents and eventually paid off by residents over periods of 10-30 years.

The main advantage of CDDs is that housing is initially less expensive since major development costs are deferred and are financed through the use of tax-free bonds. However, the main disadvantage of CDDs is that housing costs are inflated over time as the bonds need to be repaid by residents. Common property owned by CDDs is tax-exempt as government-owned property.

Concept Can Work Well - In general, the concept works well and the goal of promoting residential housing development is usually achieved.

Developers like the Chapter 190 law because they are able to offer housing at a lower initial cost than would otherwise be the case. Thus, risk is reduced and costs are conveniently shifted to residents. This cost-shifting maneuver is sometimes not recognized as such by residents. There are also incentives for developers to build attractive common facilities because developers recognize that a ready (and some would say "captive") market customer exists to eventually purchase the common facilities.

County governments like the Chapter 190 law because developments that might otherwise not be built are in fact built because of the tax incentives and pricing advantages. Property tax revenues are eventually higher than would otherwise be the case since the developments are, in fact, built.

Residents like the Chapter 190 law because the initial buy-in cost of a house often appears lower than otherwise would be the case. This is because initial infrastructure and facilities costs are deferred and not part of the initial house purchase price.

Furthermore, residents frequently do not realize that attractive common facilities are not owned initially by a CDD development and will have to be purchased eventually by the residents from the developer, often at inflated prices, thus increasing house prices.

In most cases, residential CDDs are successful. The initial government of supervisors appointed by the developer will eventually give way to those elected by the residents. Residents will then have the final word on all operating issues and any further development of the community. Residents will also have the opportunity to replace the CDD form of government with a municipal form of government at a special election several years into the life of the CDD. In these many ways, the CDD format can function well over the years.

Concept Often Does Not Work Well - Unfortunately, developers have sometimes perverted the concept of the Chapter 190 law and turned it to their advantage at the expense of the residents.

How do they do this?

First, developers maintain control of the major decision-making mechanism in CDDs though unusual maneuvers and formation of special CDD districts. These maneuvers allow developers to effectively make all the major decisions in the CDDs, often for their own advantage. Residents are not allowed to make these major decisions.

Second, developers appoint their own hand-picked board supervisors on these special CDD boards. These supervisors are often friends, business associates, or employees of the developer. Residents never have the opportunity to elect these supervisors who make all the major decisions, mostly at the direction of and often for the benefit of the developer.

Third, developers appoint administrators, without regard for the wishes of residents, who represent developer views and who often ignore the needs and interests of residents.

Fourth, if a developer's initial plans for CDD revenues do not eventually materialize, residents may be assessed further for operating expenses. For example, several CDDs in Florida, expecting integrated golf course revenues to pay for substantial CDD operating expenses, had recourse against residents when optimistic golf revenue plans failed to materialize.

Fifth, developers use special appraisal techniques, approved and accepted by their hand-picked boards, to sell common properties back to the residents in the CDDs, often at grossly inflated prices. Residents may initially buy into the development not realizing that common properties are not owned by the development, and that they, the residents, will have to eventually buy back these facilities at inflated prices. Some residents complain that they paid a higher price for their lot and house believing that the cost of common property was built into the higher prices. Then they feel like they are forced to pay again to purchase common property a second time.

Sixth, a variety of lawyers, accountants, consultants, etc., often work for combinations of developers, county governments, CDD boards, etc., in ways that suggest conflict-of-interest problems. However, the Chapter 190 law effectively exempts these operatives from state conflict-of-interest laws. The losers here are often residents who end up on the wrong side of the conflict-of-interest issue and have no advocate for their interests.

Orlando Sentinel Articles - The Orlando Sentinel published an award-wining series of articles on CDD problems in October, 2000. (These are still available on the Orlando Sentinel web site in the archives section for a small fee.) The key article in the series was entitled "Top Dollar For Plain Old Stuff." It explained the series of deals here in The Villages from 1996 to 1999 involving an $84 million payment for $8.8 in real property.

The $8.8 million value was determined by appraisers in Lake and Sumter counties. An "income-approach" appraisal method, however, was used rather then a "market-based" appraisal technique for the sale transaction. The Sentinel said that the economic consultant who devised the appraisal technique worked for both The Villages developer (seller) and the VCCDD (buyer) in this transaction.

Tax-free bonds valued at $84 million were issued to make the payment to the developer. These bonds will be repaid over 20-30 years from the "maintenance fees" paid by residents. Although it was not certain that monthly maintenance fees could be used for debt service for the purchase of common properties, the purchase was approved by CDD supervisors hand-picked by the developer. Residents had no say about whether to accept the deal or assume the debt that they are obligated to repay. Many residents now view this as an example of "Taxation Without Representation."

The Sentinel also pointed out that the University of Florida urban planning professor, who wrote some of the original 1980 law, said that the goals of the law are still worthwhile; but that some of the abuses by developers suggest that major portions of the law need to be completely revised.

Furthermore, a Volusia County attorney, who is both a lawyer and a developer, has said that CDDs are a means of "legalized land fraud."

Summary - In summary, CDDs can be a worthwhile form of local government with many advantages for the residents. However, some developers have taken advantage of the system and pervert the concept for their own advantage.

Residents in CDDs need to ask questions, be involved, and study how their government works. Often these CDD problems flourish because residents are apathetic and literally allow the problems to persist due to their "I don't want to get involved" attitude. Apathy is the fuel that can turn CDDs into resident rip-offs.

The concern that I have with this particular sale is that it is being sold to the SLCCD, not the individual districts... and the Developer will basically maintain control.

Thereby, having the cake...and eating it too.

Exactly as shown in the underlined portion in the middle of the above quote.

A quick look at who is on the SLCDD Board confirms that: SLCDD board includes Mike Berning, head of sales and marketing for The Villages; Nisbett, owner of country clubs in The Villages; Brad Brown, who headed Villages Insurance for many years; Gerry Lachnicht of Sabal Trust Company; and Randy McDaniel, head of The Villages Charter School.

Then again, some people prefer not to have to worry about such things and are perfectly content with someone else making decisions for them. :shrug:

This has nothing to do estates or inheritance. The amenities are eventually transferred from the Developer to CDD for the long term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoplanekid (Post 1306509)

I think "The Developer" has done a great job of running The Villages. I would rather see them continue in that role than some other form of "government" entity.

The SLCDD which is similar to VCCDD, so similar that they have the same phone number, both are controlled by the developer, is buying the amenities south of 466.

The VCCDD controlled by the developer, without being required to get residence approval, destroyed an architectural beauty, Katie Belle�s, a residence only club. Now open to the public. Granted low profit could have dictated the change.

When the SLCDD acquires play for free golf courses and Recreation Centers they will have served their purpose of bait for residential buyers. The Recreation Centers could become mini malls or whatever and the golf courses could be new villages. If you don�t like it don�t let the door��.

North of 466 did it right having an AAC.

For those who say, I love the developer, he would not do that. I say don�t let him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Shadow (Post 1306694)

Well, that certainly is a worse case scenario.

The developer owns the building that contains Katie Belle's. As the owner, he has the right to determine what goes in the building. If the place was doing well, i.e. ROI, nothing likely would have changed. IMO, the restaurant was not returning enough, especially compared to what could be gained by reducing its size and location, opening it to all, and creating a new lease space on the ground floor.

But, you've touched on the one aspect of this transfer that is most concerning. Instead of an AAC for the southern residents, they have decided to use the PWAC to administer amenity funds. But, the PWAC is controlled by the SLCDD with residential CDD representatives present in an advisory capacity only. The north AAC had an advantage in that the revenue from the lawsuit gave them a fund from which they could draw as needed to care for and expand amenities as needed. There is no such nest egg for the south.

Regarding "don't let him", there is no way I can see, unfortunately, outside of legal action that residents can alter the arrangement. The district has already rejected a south AAC. I'm not sure what basis exists for a lawsuit, anyway.

Note: There are amenities south of 466A which will still have to be dealt with at a future time. 400 million is just a few dollars above my pay grade!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeod (Post 1306734)

Well, that certainly is a worse case scenario.

Regarding "don't let him", there is no way I can see, unfortunately, outside of legal action that residents can alter the arrangement. The district has already rejected a south AAC. I'm not sure what basis exists for a lawsuit, anyway.

It is not over till the POA sings. They won the case north of 466.

coldnomore:

I have repeated your below-stated comments on these pages since signing on to TOTV and Developer proponents have always shouted me down.

And I never understood the sentimentality and devotion to a business entity Villages Lake-Sumter, Inc/aka Developer? To me the relationship is business not personal. VLSI built a community by leveraging debt eventually paid for by residents and in doing so made huge profits. Its called capitalism which I favor but developers don't do it because of altrusims but profit motives so the "look what the developer built just for us" remarks leaves me bewildered

Residents still do no having any voting rights as it all generates from the board of supervisors picked and owned by the Developer and who also control [t]he District in matters that count; albeit they won't admit it. Look at the annual survey questions and you will note they are all puff questions. Perhaps this is best? Perhaps residents should have an opportunity to decide for themselves?

In my opinion Shadow is correct as respects his/her comments pertaining to POA and the AAC.

In the end its all good

I opine others can decide

(coldnomore's comments)

The concern that I have with this particular sale is that it is being sold to the SLCCD, not the individual districts... and the Developer will basically maintain control.

Thereby, having the cake...and eating it too.

Exactly as shown in the underlined portion in the middle of the above quote.

A quick look at who is on the SLCDD Board confirms that: SLCDD board includes Mike Berning, head of sales and marketing for The Villages; Nisbett, owner of country clubs in The Villages; Brad Brown, who headed Villages Insurance for many years; Gerry Lachnicht of Sabal Trust Company; and Randy McDaniel, head of The Villages Charter School.

Then again, some people prefer not to have to worry about such things and are perfectly content with someone else making decisions for them.
__________________
Standing up for the underdog and against bullies...every chance I get.
Reply With Quote

Quote:

Originally Posted by justjim (Post 1306758)

Note: There are amenities south of 466A which will still have to be dealt with at a future time. 400 million is just a few dollars above my pay grade!

According to the Sun, this purchase is of ALL amenities south on 466, including Eisenhower, Rohan, and everything down to 44.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeod (Post 1306415)

You are correct !! What bothers me a great deal is that the decision to more or less force us into the purchase was determined by a board that is totally appointed by the Developer. Every member has a connection to the Developer.

The SLCDD purchases the income stream from amenity money as well as the buildings. They then issue taxable bonds to pay for the purchases. The amenity income stream pays off the bond. The result of this action causes a large percent of our amenity money to be used for those payments and not for lifestyle activities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allegiance (Post 1306580)

Hang in there Al. The Political Forum should be coming back soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-Town (Post 1306889)

Hang in there Al. The Political Forum should be coming back soon.

Thanks, It's tough. At least I have the pleasure and distraction of Chicago winning the series. And the NFL pool with its large prize, thanks Tal.

Dear cold no more, chapter 190 statute regarding cdd should be required reading for for all people thinking of moving to the villages. The developer has certainly taken advantage of this statute with no regard for the harm it has inflicted on the people who made him millions(maybe billons). Looks like he has no intention of stopping his abuse of power. We have no vote or say in what he is doing. We are at mercy of money hungry, power hungry despot. Waiting to see what financial repercussions of the bridge situation & $400 millon in bonds issued in the name of the villagers. People who look at developer through their rose tinted glasses may
see things differently when it affects their hard earned retirement savins.

Setting aside the control issue for a moment, the selling of things from a private to a public entity should enhance the public�s ability to access information on �what is going on�. And, all decisions should then be judged as to whether they are made in the Public not private interest.

Developer made sure that everying below 466 was cdd. If you read the chapter 190 florida statute on cdds(provided by one of the villagers on this site) developers have total control over these districts. Developer can do anything he wants & shift the financial responsibily to the villagers(i.e. Morse bridge, $400m in bonds,etc). We have no vote. He is in total control. He does not have to exercise these rights(some fair minded deveopers don't) but developer has taken the low road to greed. I'm confident morse family has an entire law firm looking out for their interests.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blicata (Post 1308419)

I would like to hear more detailed information on the differences between north and south of 466.

I admit to being very naive about cdd's, deed restrictions etc.

THIS, AND MORE INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND AT Village Community Development Districts

Sumter Landing Community Development District
District Board Meetings are held at the Large Conference Room in the District Office located at 984 Old Mill Run. Audio recordings of Board meetings, workshops or public hearings are available for purchase per Florida Statute 119.07 through the District Clerk for $1.00 per CD requested. Residents may also arrange to listen to audio recordings at the District office. Please call 352-751-3939 for requests or information.
Capital Improvement Plan - Fiscal Years 2012/13 - 2016/17
Sumter Landing Community Development District was established pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 190 and Sumter County Ordinance No.02-06 on March 19, 2002. The lands that are encompassed by the District are located in the Sumter County, FL and consist of approximately 432 acres. The geographical boundary of the District is comprised of commercial properties.
Maintenance of the infrastructure is provided through an annual assessment to commercial property owners based upon square footage of the benefitting properties.
Governance of the Sumter Landing Community Development District is accomplished by a five member Board of Supervisors, elected biannually, as described in Chapter 190.006, Florida Statutes. Inasmuch as there are no residential properties contained within the boundaries of the Sumter Landing Community Development District, members of the Board of Supervisors will continue to be elected by the landowners of property within the boundaries of the District.
The Sumter Landing Community Development District does have the legal ability to provide services outside of the established geographical boundaries. Among the services provided to residential properties within The Villages are security, fire and emergency medical first response (non-transport) services, recreational facilities and services, water retention areas, and executive golf. These services are paid for through the receipt of monthly contractual amenity fees, a fee for service, paid by each residential property within the service area of the District, as described by the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions applying to each residential property.
As a governmental entity in the State of Florida, Sumter Landing Community Development District is held to the same high standards as cities and counties as it pertains to Sunshine Law, Public Records Law, Financial Reporting and Financial Disclosure Laws. Additionally, the Board of Supervisors adheres to Florida Statute Chapter 112, Part III- Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees.
District Administration
984 Old Mill Run
The Villages, Florida 32162
Phone: 352-751-3939 - Fax: 352-753-6430