[bike42]

Originally Posted by janmcn

A lot of residents, myself included, are wondering why the home owners are paying $300,000 per month in legal fees for the developer.

Rumor Control please! The figure you're quoting is the TOTAL legal expense for the five years this has gone on. Less than the cost of a bad divorce. $3.00 per resident.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by janmcn

As was stated previously, you will not be given any written guarantee that you will not be financially harmed in any way.

And many of the critics continue to sing the same song with the same lyrics, year after year after year after year.

And they still have the same beautiful lifestyle, year after year etc.

[Missouri boy]

I’ve been watching the various information about the IRS ruling. Is it possible to know what is the worst that could happen. There are so many of you that understand this issue. This is way beyond my ability.

[EdV]

If you want some assurances in writing, here is what you will get if you do decide to purchase:

1. The Declarations and Restrictions document (contract) that you sign when you purchase a home in TV states that any increase in the amenity fee paid to the one of the two special district(s) cannot exceed the increase in the consumer price index in any given year. And no “special assessment” fees are provided for in that document.

2. Other than the amenity fee, the special district(s) have no taxing authority over you or your home in TV. They can exercise a lien on your home if necessary, but only for unpaid amenity fees.

3. The annual maintenance fee that you pay to your numbered district for maintenance of the common grounds within your numbered district is set by that district’s resident elected board of supervisors, and not by the developer or his two special districts.

[Advogado]

[quote=bike42;710462]

Originally Posted by janmcn

A lot of residents, myself included, are wondering why the home owners are paying $300,000 per month in legal fees for the developer.

Rumor Control please! The figure you're quoting is the TOTAL legal expense for the five years this has gone on. Less than the cost of a bad divorce. $3.00 per resident.

As I recall, the last published figure for total attorney fees was $700,000. That was some time ago. The total must be about $1 million now. However, as long as we continue to get our amenities at the promised level, I guess we can't complain as Villagers. (Maybe we can as US taxpayers, since we have been subsidizing the Developer.)

There is one consideration in this regard that hasn't been mentioned in any of the posts on this matter: Every year, the amenity fee seems to be increased by the amount of the CPI. The CPI is supposed to be a cap on increases. If the Center District were not spending amenity-fee revenue defending the Developer's use of tax-exempt bonds, maybe our annual increases would be less. But who knows?

That consideration aside, in all fairness to the Developer, SO FAR it appears to be "no harm, no foul" and no basis for another class action by Villagers. We will see what the future holds.

[janmcn]

[quote=Advogado;710493]

Originally Posted by bike42

As I recall, the last published figure for total attorney fees was $700,000. That was some time ago. The total must be about $1 million now. However, as long as we continue to get our amenities at the promised level, I guess we can't complain as Villagers. (Maybe we can as US taxpayers, since we have been subsidizing the Developer.)

There is one consideration in this regard that hasn't been mentioned in any of the posts on this matter: Every year, the amenity fee seems to be increased by the amount of the CPI. The CPI is supposed to be a cap on increases. If the Center District were not spending amenity-fee revenue defending the Developer's use of tax-exempt bonds, maybe our annual increases would be less. But who knows?

That consideration aside, in all fairness to the Developer, SO FAR it appears to be "no harm, no foul" and no basis for another class action by Villagers. We will see what the future holds.

That still doesn't answer the question of why are the residents paying to defend the developer's bottom line?

[EdV]

Originally Posted by Advogado

.... If the Center District were not spending amenity-fee revenue defending the Developer's use of tax-exempt bonds, maybe our annual increases would be less. But who knows?.....

Actually Advocodo that’s not the way it works. You see, if you read your contract carefully in the amenities section you’ll find this carefully worded declaration:

“the Contractual Amenities Fee is a fee for services and is in no way adjusted according to the cost of providing those services.”

What this actually means is that they can raise the fee if the CPI goes up but are not required to lower it if it were to go down. Furthermore, it means that they can (and do) subtract the actual cost of running the amenities from the amenity fee income and then hand over the balance to the developer as management fees. (see the published VCCDD budget)

That’s something most TV residents just don’t understand.

[Advogado]

For those who are interested in staying informed, here is today's news that was posted on the Distict Gov website: http://districtgov.org/IRSupdate.aspxl

Still no resolution of the dispute. It will be interesting to see the Daily Sun / VHA spin on this.

[Advogado]

[quote=Advogado;710493]

Originally Posted by bike42

As I recall, the last published figure for total attorney fees was $700,000. That was some time ago. The total must be about $1 million now. However, as long as we continue to get our amenities at the promised level, I guess we can't complain as Villagers. (Maybe we can as US taxpayers, since we have been subsidizing the Developer.)

There is one consideration in this regard that hasn't been mentioned in any of the posts on this matter: Every year, the amenity fee seems to be increased by the amount of the CPI. The CPI is supposed to be a cap on increases. If the Center District were not spending amenity-fee revenue defending the Developer's use of tax-exempt bonds, maybe our annual increases would be less. But who knows?

That consideration aside, in all fairness to the Developer, SO FAR it appears to be "no harm, no foul" and no basis for another class action by Villagers. We will see what the future holds.

[quote=janmcn;710509]

Originally Posted by Advogado

That still doesn't answer the question of why are the residents paying to defend the developer's bottom line?

Hey, I am not happy about the whole situation.

But to answer your question, technically the Center District, as the issuer of the purportedly tax-exempt bonds, is paying its attorneys to defend its actions. My point in my earlier post is that what the residents are entitled to, in exchange for our amenity fees, are the amenities at the same level as when our house was originally sold by the Developer. As long as we get that, we are not hurt by the District's paying attorneys to defend what is really the Developer's financing scheme.

IF the attorney fees and, more importantly, the other costs resulting from loss of the tax-exempt status of the bonds render the Center District financially unable to continue to provide the amenities, THEN we have a basis for a claim against the Center District and the Developer. But for right now, life goes on.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by EdV

Actually Advocodo that’s not the way it works. You see, if you read your contract carefully in the amenities section you’ll find this carefully worded declaration:

“the Contractual Amenities Fee is a fee for services and is in no way adjusted according to the cost of providing those services.”

What this actually means is that they can raise the fee if the CPI goes up but are not required to lower it if it were to go down. Furthermore, it means that they can (and do) subtract the actual cost of running the amenities from the amenity fee income and then hand over the balance to the developer as management fees. (see the published VCCDD budget)

That’s something most TV residents just don’t understand.

I don't think that you and I are in disagreement.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Advogado

For those who are interested in staying informed, here is today's news that was posted on the Distict Gov website: http://districtgov.org/IRSupdate.aspxl

Still no resolution of the dispute. It will be interesting to see the Daily Sun / VHA spin on this.

The Daily Sun has reported on this in today's edition, on page C5, in an article entitled "Attorney refutes IRS memo regarding tax-exempt bonds". The reporting is straight forward, but it once again fails to give the reader the background information necessary to understand what is going on.

[TVMayor]

Originally Posted by Advogado

The Daily Sun has reported on this in today's edition, on page C5, in an article entitled "Attorney refutes IRS memo regarding tax-exempt bonds". The reporting is straight forward, but it once again fails to give the reader the background information necessary to understand what is going on.

"Attorney refutes IRS memo regarding tax-exempt bonds" Am I correct in interpreting this to mean The Villages is telling the IRS they do not know what they are talking about?

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by Advogado

The Daily Sun has reported on this in today's edition, on page C5, in an article entitled "Attorney refutes IRS memo regarding tax-exempt bonds". The reporting is straight forward, but it once again fails to give the reader the background information necessary to understand what is going on.

What would you expect the Attorney for the developer would say ?? The min problem is the VCCDD set up. Those who don't know, the VCCDD controls most fiancial decisions north of 466. The committee that makes the actual decisions are "elected" by the property owner in that district. The only property owner in the VCCDD happens to be the developer. This district is bounded by the Spanish springs business area and there are no residents living within those boundaries. I have little faith in the Attorney Perry Israel and know from experience that attorneys love to drag out cases. Simply put, the longer a case lasts, the more money a attorney makes.

[Dreamer61]

Wow!!! You go dudes! After much painstaking thinking. And reading about this matter, I've decided to have some faith. The developer is obviously a pretty wise individual and has a truck load of attorneys working for him. This is really his issue. The residents are not involved in the matter. The people the developer has set in place to run TV and keep it running smoothly have done an outstanding job. My opinion: Relax and enjoy your beautiful community, my father always said.. Don't worry about something until you have something to worry about! Just saying...

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by Dreamer61

Wow!!! You go dudes! After much painstaking thinking. And reading about this matter, I've decided to have some faith. The developer is obviously a pretty wise individual and has a truck load of attorneys working for him. This is really his issue. The residents are not involved in the matter. The people the developer has set in place to run TV and keep it running smoothly have done an outstanding job. My opinion: Relax and enjoy your beautiful community, my father always said.. Don't worry about something until you have something to worry about! Just saying...

Dreamer I love your optimism but there is a but. Your statement is not quite correct, "If" the IRS rules against the bonds being tax free there is no doubt we might have to pay up. As I said in an earlier posting the Developer has total control over the VCCDD and the election of the committee members. It is my understanding that the VCCDD sold the bonds in question to purchase properties. Now here is where things get sticky. It is important to realize the VCCDD represents the Villages Residents eventhough it is controlled by the Developer. YThe VCCDD sells the bonds on our behalf to buy properties from the Developer. The Developer pockets a nice profit, and we (the Villagers) must pay back the borrowed money (the bonds). So, who's responsibility is it to pay if the IRS says no to the ineligible tax free bonds.