[Advogado]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1109650]

Originally Posted by iaudit

Thank you for the clarification. Are you sure the CDDs north of 466 do not own/control the rec centers?

They do not. Iaudit's post is correct in all aspects.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

[QUOTE=Warren Kiefer;1109420]

Originally Posted by TVMayor

Surely you realize there are two totally DIFFERENT boards. This statute refers to the CDD boards which are Residents elected by Residents. The VCCDD and SLCDD are also landowner elected boards. BUT at this time the ONLY landowner in the downtown Spanish Springs and Sumter Landing areas is the developer. The developer casts all the possible votes and consequently elects whom he wants. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE VOTING RESIDENT WHO LIVES IN EITHER THE VCCDD or THE SLCDD.

No, I did not no that there are two different boards and I don't care.

I didn't retire to this beautiful place to worry about all of this stuff.

You seem to enjoy getting involved in these kinds of discussions and evidently believe that you have some kind of power to influence the powers that be. I'm glad that you've found something that you enjoy although for the life of me, I can't imagine anyone enjoying getting all worked up.

Today, I'm going to mow, edge and trim the grass at the house I have for sale and then spend a nice afternoon with my wife. Maybe we'll have lunch at the pool.

By the way, I didn't post this link that you've credited to me.

[downeaster]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Hi meeja: i do understand why you feel the way you do and it is impossible for the loser to defend a lawsuit viewed as lost. However one of my duties was to oversee 250 lawsuits at any given time around the country. We settle some lawsuits simply because the cost of defending was going to end up being more than the settlement. In fact that is the primary reason trial lawyes take up lawsuits because they force the defense to expend large sums and they know if they keep it up they will get a payday. Without belaboring it we settled for several reasons including judges who were influenced by anything other than the facts of a case. Because the POA lawsuit was settled with prejudice doesn't mean the truth prevailed. i am not going to retry this case in this post but you may want to reread the facts especially the part were the facts support the promise the Developer made for a southside AAC.

Personal Best Regards:

Very interesting and revealing. Thanks.

[Warren Kiefer]

[QUOTE=Dr Winston O Boogie jr;1109702][QUOTE=Warren Kiefer;1109420]

No, I did not no that there are two different boards and I don't care.

I didn't retire to this beautiful place to worry about all of this stuff.

You seem to enjoy getting involved in these kinds of discussions and evidently believe that you have some kind of power to influence the powers that be. I'm glad that you've found something that you enjoy although for the life of me, I can't imagine anyone enjoying getting all worked up.

Today, I'm going to mow, edge and trim the grass at the house I have for sale and then spend a nice afternoon with my wife. Maybe we'll have lunch at the pool.

By the way, I didn't post this link that you've credited to me.[/QUO

It was not my intention to reply to your post. The post I was responding to was written by TVMayor. Sorry about that.

[Warren Kiefer]

[QUOTE=iaudit;1109641]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Outlaw, some of the above statements are absolutely wrong. None of the numbered CDD's control any amenity facility(executive golf course, pool, courts, recreation center, etc.). They are controlled by the town center CDD's which in reality are controlled by developer who is the sole landowner there. Because of the settled lawsuit, certain expenditures on facilities north of 466 are controlled by resident elected Amenity Authority Committee representatives. The numbered CDD do not collect amenity fees, either the developer or the town center CDD collect those, depending on whether an amenity facility has been sold to the town center. Only infrastructure, such as cart paths, landscaping, etc. is controlled by numbered CDD's. You really need to go to an orientation class before making comments on CDD structure and responsibility. Your statements perpetuate falsehoods that have been espoused by others in the past.

This was a 100% accurate comment by the op.. Our AAC north of 466 has done a wonderful job using the 40 million settlement to refurbish Paradise, build TDS and Santiago Rec centers. CDD'c own nothing and are usually in charge of minor neighborhood issues. The author refers to town center CDD's while some call them District Centers. Anyway, these District Centers are administered by a governing board. I live in the VCCDD, others live in the SLVCDD. Mine is the Spanish Springs area with no residents living inside it's boundaries.. Now for an example; Our VCCDD board members are elected by a single vote from the only landowner in the VCCDD, that landowner being the Developer. The VCCDD board then hires a district manager, which at this time is Janet Tutt. She is paid thru Residents funding and in theory works for the Residents. I can think of no reasonable explanation how we Residents have any control over the District Manager or the VCCDD. Do these facts make it reasonable to assume a District Manager and the Central District board would be supportive of the Developer in any Developer/Resident dispute ??? I simply don't think this is the best system of government for we Residents.

[outlaw]

[QUOTE=Warren Kiefer;1109937]

Originally Posted by iaudit

This was a 100% accurate comment by the op.. Our AAC north of 466 has done a wonderful job using the 40 million settlement to refurbish Paradise, build TDS and Santiago Rec centers. CDD'c own nothing and are usually in charge of minor neighborhood issues. The author refers to town center CDD's while some call them District Centers. Anyway, these District Centers are administered by a governing board. I live in the VCCDD, others live in the SLVCDD. Mine is the Spanish Springs area with no residents living inside it's boundaries.. Now for an example; Our VCCDD board members are elected by a single vote from the only landowner in the VCCDD, that landowner being the Developer. The VCCDD board then hires a district manager, which at this time is Janet Tutt. She is paid thru Residents funding and in theory works for the Residents. I can think of no reasonable explanation how we Residents have any control over the District Manager or the VCCDD. Do these facts make it reasonable to assume a District Manager and the Central District board would be supportive of the Developer in any Developer/Resident dispute ??? I simply don't think this is the best system of government for we Residents.

So, if I understand you correctly:
The AAC has no connection to the CDDs. Was it set up for administering the $40M?
The CDD boards are elected by the residents in that particular district.
The VCCDD and SLVCDD boards are "elected" by the only voter, the developer, since there are no other land owners in those unique CDDs.
The VCCDD and SLVCCDD manage the amenities (exec golf courses, rec centers, etc.
So, in essence, the developer controls the amenity fees, budget, etc.
Is that correct?

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

[QUOTE=Warren Kiefer;1109899][QUOTE=Dr Winston O Boogie jr;1109702]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

No, I did not no that there are two different boards and I don't care.

I didn't retire to this beautiful place to worry about all of this stuff.

You seem to enjoy getting involved in these kinds of discussions and evidently believe that you have some kind of power to influence the powers that be. I'm glad that you've found something that you enjoy although for the life of me, I can't imagine anyone enjoying getting all worked up.

Today, I'm going to mow, edge and trim the grass at the house I have for sale and then spend a nice afternoon with my wife. Maybe we'll have lunch at the pool.

By the way, I didn't post this link that you've credited to me.[/QUO

It was not my intention to reply to your post. The post I was responding to was written by TVMayor. Sorry about that.

No problem. Have a nice day.

[Warren Kiefer]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1110141]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

So, if I understand you correctly:
The AAC has no connection to the CDDs. Was it set up for administering the $40M?
The CDD boards are elected by the residents in that particular district.
The VCCDD and SLVCDD boards are "elected" by the only voter, the developer, since there are no other land owners in those unique CDDs.
The VCCDD and SLVCCDD manage the amenities (exec golf courses, rec centers, etc.
So, in essence, the developer controls the amenity fees, budget, etc.
Is that correct?

100 % correct !!!! Originally set up to invest the 40 million on the residents behalf.. There is a string of funding that continues to be the responsibility of the Amenities Authority Committee. (AAC)

It is no secret that the Developer has a lot of influence over the town center boards. After all he casts the only vote when the VCCDD or SLVCDD is elected to their positions.

[outlaw]

[QUOTE=Warren Kiefer;1110376]

Originally Posted by outlaw

100 % correct !!!! Originally set up to invest the 40 million on the residents behalf.. There is a string of funding that continues to be the responsibility of the Amenities Authority Committee. (AAC)

It is no secret that the Developer has a lot of influence over the town center boards. After all he casts the only vote when the VCCDD or SLVCDD is elected to their positions.

YES! I PASSED.
Thanks for the clarification.

[Advogado]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1110141]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

So, if I understand you correctly:
The AAC has no connection to the CDDs. Was it set up for administering the $40M?
The CDD boards are elected by the residents in that particular district.
The VCCDD and SLVCDD boards are "elected" by the only voter, the developer, since there are no other land owners in those unique CDDs.
The VCCDD and SLVCCDD manage the amenities (exec golf courses, rec centers, etc.
So, in essence, the developer controls the amenity fees, budget, etc.
Is that correct?

Warren said that you are 100% correct. I would put your percentage at about 80%, but you do get the gist of the situation.

Let me explain further:

1. Categories of Community Development District There are two categories of CDDs in The Villages: (a) The numbered Districts, which encompass all the residences, and (b) the three commercial Districts, which encompass the three town-square areas. Thus, the three commercial districts are the Village Center Community Development District ("VCCDD"), the Sumter Landing Community Development District ("SLCDD"), and the Brownwood Community Development Disrict.
2. The Amenity Authority Committee.The AAC is affiliated only with the VCCDD. Contrary to your post, the AAC not only administers the $40 million class-action settlement funds, but also all the amenity expenditures by that District.
3. Ownership of the Amenities. The Developer has sold all the amenities north of 466 to the VCCDD and some of the amenities south of 466 to the SLCDD. The Developer stopped the sales as a result of the IRS investigation, and therefore still owns many of the amenity facilities south of 466. Since the commercial districts are now prohibited from issuing any more tax-exempt bonds, it is unclear whether the Developer will continue to sell the amenity facilities south of 466 (and the right to receive the amenity fees) to the relevant commercial district or will simply retain those facilities and the amenity fees.
4. Ownership of property in the commercial districts.The Developer (which is a corporation called "The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc.") has sold off some of the properties within the commercial districts but still remains in control of the government of those districts. The developer control of those districts is the basis for the IRS's denying future issuance of tax-exempt bonds.

I hope this helps clarify a very complex situation.

[villagerjack]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

Usually true but the point is that you cannot have it both ways. When confronting opposite statements, one must assume one is correct and one is false. If I had wanted to release my bias, I would have included in my posting that Mike Berning serving as Chairman of the SLCDD was elected to that board from the resulting vote of a single landowner, that land owner being the Developer. Mr. Berning refers to some of the Residents as negative folk who over the years have only hurt our community. These negative folk have won a lot of issues regarding the right of residents. But as to me always being a supporter of the POA, mostly true but but as I said "somebody is lying".

Was it the OP who said he was NEUTRAL?

[outlaw]

[QUOTE=Advogado;1110656]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Warren said that you are 100% correct. I would put your percentage at about 80%, but you do get the gist of the situation.

Let me explain further:

1. Categories of Community Development District There are two categories of CDDs in The Villages: (a) The numbered Districts, which encompass all the residences, and (b) the three commercial Districts, which encompass the three town-square areas. Thus, the three commercial districts are the Village Center Community Development District ("VCCDD"), the Sumter Landing Community Development District ("SLCDD"), and the Brownwood Community Development Disrict.
2. The Amenity Authority Committee.The AAC is affiliated only with the VCCDD. Contrary to your post, the AAC not only administers the $40 million class-action settlement funds, but also all the amenity expenditures by that District.
3. Ownership of the Amenities. The Developer has sold all the amenities north of 466 to the VCCDD and some of the amenities south of 466 to the SLCDD. The Developer stopped the sales as a result of the IRS investigation, and therefore still owns many of the amenity facilities south of 466. Since the commercial districts are now prohibited from issuing any more tax-exempt bonds, it is unclear whether the Developer will continue to sell the amenity facilities south of 466 (and the right to receive the amenity fees) to the relevant commercial district or will simply retain those facilities and the amenity fees.
4. Ownership of property in the commercial districts.The Developer (which is a corporation called "The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc.") has sold off some of the properties within the commercial districts but still remains in control of the government of those districts. The developer control of those districts is the basis for the IRS's denying future issuance of tax-exempt bonds.

I hope this helps clarify a very complex situation.

Thanks for the further clarification. I'm surprised the developer sold any of the commercial property. Do you know if this action was necessary to attract certain chains that insist on "owning" their business property?

[Advogado]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1110732]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Thanks for the further clarification. I'm surprised the developer sold any of the commercial property. Do you know if this action was necessary to attract certain chains that insist on "owning" their business property?

You are welcome.

I do not know why the Developer sold any of the property, but I also do not know of the relationship (if any) of the new owners to the Developer. It would take some real digging to figure it all out, and, since I don't think it affects us, I am not curious enough to do the digging. (As I recall, one of the IRS documents contains a list of the other owners in the VCCDD, but that document does not explain the reasons for the sale.) But If any of the other posters know the answer to your question, please advise.

[twoplanekid]

FYI
Ownership of the Amenities

According to Janet Tutt, VCCDD owns/controls 22,707 amenity fees, Sumter Landing CDD 6,604 and the Developer/The Villages of Lake-Sumter 25,918 as of July, 2015

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

FYI
Ownership of the Amenities

According to Janet Tutt, VCCDD owns/controls 22,707 amenity fees, Sumter Landing CDD 6,604 and the Developer/The Villages of Lake-Sumter 25,918 as of July, 2015

That's only $8.2M per month.