[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by timjones

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[timjones]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

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]

Originally Posted by timjones

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 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.