[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

The bond is a clever scam to permit the charging of more money from the Developer. After all who wants to pay for the additional overcharging of your home the seller would love to receive?

So a 450,000 dollar home is really 500,000 thousand, all the while just outside the bubble the same home is 275,000. Who knew?

The bond is insult to injury under predatory salesmanship.

Please post an example of the $450K Villages home and the identical $250K home just outside the Villages. I’m sure there is a markup for a location inside the Villages but it’s hard to believe the markup is $200K.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by biker1

I don't know what the percentage is now but 10 years ago is was 5% on my new home. I wrote a check to pay if off.

It isn’t, it could be more or less. It’s the added hidden windfall charge from the Developer that is “Supposedly “ set to cover costs for road and development of a neighborhood. A courtyard Villa neighborhood would be less than say a designer home neighborhood. The concentration of homes can defray the cost. The good news is the bond isn’t considered in your taxable rate from the city and county.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Please post an example of the $450K Villages home and the identical $250K home just outside the Villages. I’m sure there is a markup for a location inside the Villages but it’s hard to believe the markup is $200K.

Orlando FL New Homes and Real Estate for Sale - Taylor Morrison

Just go proportional. Not every home costs 450,000 k

Here’s one in Leesburg
New Construction Homes for Sale in Leesburg, Orlando, FL - Taylor Morrison

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

Orlando FL New Homes and Real Estate for Sale - Taylor Morrison

Just go proportional. Not every home costs 450,000 k

Here’s one in Leesburg
New Construction Homes for Sale in Leesburg, Orlando, FL - Taylor Morrison

So not exactly identical and not $200K less than the Villages.

Yes, there are homes outside the Villages that cost less, there are also homes outside that cost more. That seems to be evidence of a healthy marketplace, not predatory practices or a scam.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by Normal

The good news is the bond isn’t considered in your taxable rate from the city and county.

Very interesting point, that tax savings could cover a significant amount of the bond cost.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Altavia

Very interesting point, that tax savings could cover a significant amount of the bond cost.

Perhaps if you lived in an unincorporated section. But aren’t most of those bonds already paid off?

The only real place where bonds are high and only climbing are in the new sales area. Here 100% of the homes have a bond and 100% of the homes are incorporated. Generalizing any new home purchased has about a $50,000 added bond and at least an additional 1,000 dollars annually for life to cover municipality taxes. The rarity is finding an almost new home where someone paid off the bond.

Unincorporated is quickly becoming the viable buying option for those who are budget savvy.

[biker1]

I was only stating what mine was, 10 years ago.

Originally Posted by Normal

It isn’t, it could be more or less. It’s the added hidden windfall charge from the Developer that is “Supposedly “ set to cover costs for road and development of a neighborhood. A courtyard Villa neighborhood would be less than say a designer home neighborhood. The concentration of homes can defray the cost. The good news is the bond isn’t considered in your taxable rate from the city and county.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Normal

The good news is the bond isn’t considered in your taxable rate from the city and county.

Originally Posted by Altavia

Very interesting point, that tax savings could cover a significant amount of the bond cost.

Must be New Math.

I'd like to see that calculation, seeing as Bond Payments are not Tax Deductible and Taxes are.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Must be New Math.

I'd like to see that calculation, seeing as Bond Payments are not Tax Deductible and Taxes are.

No, just regular old math.

In some places the cost of infrastructure is included in the selling price of the home. Here, the cost of infrastructure is in the separate bond. The selling price of the home is a starting point for determining the assessed value of the home which is used to calculate property taxes.

Lower selling price -> lower assessed value -> lower property taxes

It's been quite a while since I've been able to itemize my deductions so a lower assessed value benefits me much more than higher taxes.

[RL Lemke]

The assessed value is a function of fair market value, regardless of how development is financed. Then, after the county assessor determines the total value county wide, the cost of government is apportioned.

When I vote on tax rates, we apportion for debt and M&O separately. If you look at the property tax invoices in the three counties you will see a number of separate apportionments. Everything from schools, stormwater, trash, city operations, county operations, etc…

So, what one pays the county in Florida for a single family home is 85% of fair market value, less exemptions, times the total of the millage rates. Any bond balance tied to a parcel has no impact. The fair market value of a home in The Villages doesn’t appear to be influenced by bond balance. Home sales prices seem far more influenced by location, size, condition and decorating.

It appears that local counties are slow to reappraise home values, unlike other states I’ve worked in. Thus, when you look at what home sellers pay for their property taxes varies widely. That is why you should avoid looking at what people pay and instead focus on what you pay for the home, as that will establish a new fair market value. People who have been in their home for many years will benefit from the slow county assessor revaluation.

[RL Lemke]

BTW: When I was appointed to the taxing authority in 1999, our levy was $0.38/$100. Today, that rate is $0.08/$100. We took our responsibility for managing taxpayer money very seriously.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

So not exactly identical and not $200K less than the Villages.

Yes, there are homes outside the Villages that cost less, there are also homes outside that cost more. That seems to be evidence of a healthy marketplace, not predatory practices or a scam.

It probably was when he brought? Housing has gone up at 100% since then everywhere? Elsewhere even now and not near populated area 500K gets you 10 to 20 acres plus with ponds, out buildings, and land you can offset living on. Even those has sufficiently increase after inflationary years. But, villages often a distinctly different life style in golden years of rest and relaxation. IMO that’s big factor from inside and outside bubble.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by RL Lemke

The assessed value is a function of fair market value, regardless of how development is financed. Then, after the county assessor determines the total value county wide, the cost of government is apportioned.

When I vote on tax rates, we apportion for debt and M&O separately. If you look at the property tax invoices in the three counties you will see a number of separate apportionments. Everything from schools, stormwater, trash, city operations, county operations, etc…

So, what one pays the county in Florida for a single family home is 85% of fair market value, less exemptions, times the total of the millage rates. Any bond balance tied to a parcel has no impact. The fair market value of a home in The Villages doesn’t appear to be influenced by bond balance. Home sales prices seem far more influenced by location, size, condition and decorating.

Where did you get your 85% number. When I look at my Sumter County property tax bill the assessed value is derived directly from the Market Value with no 85% factor involved.

My home originally sold for $289K with a $21K bond. The first year the fair market value was listed by the assessor as $273K. If the cost of the infrastructure was not collected through the bond then it would have been added to the price of the house - the developer was going to recover those costs one way or another. So instead of $289K, the initial purchase price of my home would have been $310K. Are you suggesting that the manner in which the infrastructure is financed does not factor into the assessor's determinations and the fair market value of my home would still have been $273K even though it sold for almost $40K more?

There have been several threads over the years on whether an owner should pay off the bond and whether that amount could be recovered in the next sale. The fair market value of a home here is rarely affected by the bond balance. Buyers are willing to accept the bond balance but are rarely willing to pay a premium on a home without a bond.

If the bond was included in the initial price of the home then the market value of all homes would be higher than they are now. Because we have the bond separate from the price of the home, the market values are lower. (the alternative is the homes are initially priced as if the bond was included and that amount becomes extra profit for the Developer)

[RL Lemke]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Where did you get your 85% number.

I don’t recall. When I first analyzed a retirement budget for Arizona, Nevada and Florida I wanted to quantify property taxes, making an apples to apples comparison. I knew that Nevada assed at 35% of FMV, and derived what Arizona and Florida did. 85% for Florida became my conclusion.

I may be wrong, and Florida assessors do indeed use FMV for their assessed value. I would have to search recent sales and compare the data to the assessed value. Work I have little interest in at this point, of now becoming a Florida homeowner. I will learn of my homes assessed value in early 2026.

Regardless of the veracity of the 85%, the comparison between the locations in my cheatsheet is accurate. One need only scale the $425,000 value, and resulting pre-exemption tax assessment up or down depending on the price of the home being considered for purchase.

Then, add the fixed charges on the tax invoice, like bond, district O&M and fire in unincorporated Sumter and Marion county.

[RL Lemke]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Are you suggesting that the manner in which the infrastructure is financed does not factor into the assessor's determinations

I am stating that this is accurate. How infrastructure is financed is not the province of the assessor. Just as city debt, often bond sales, doesn’t influence the assessment. Nor state or federal debt.

I consider the parcel specific bond debt, within a specific unit of apportioned development debt, to be just one of a number of ways a developer finances the improvements. Guided by state law, the use of debt before or after development is common, going by different names in different states. It is my experience that the sales price of the thousands of lots I’ve developed were not impacted by the development debt. National homebuilders paid the same.