I know my post was long -- as noted in the last line. Did you bother to read it before responding. If not, I'll try to clarify.

I scolded no one (this time) for asking questions. You said "And I still think the members of the numbered CDDs probably know alot about this issue and could enlighten all of us." That is why I brought up the board meetings. Some may not realize the meeting were open and easily available to them. I don't expect to see a post on TOTV that starts, "Hi, I'm Joe Schmoo and I'm a member of the board of CDD 65. Here's the real, true, secret, classified, and totally not confusing answers to all your questions."

As to whether "no one is able to explain" all the issues involved, I doubt that. The problem is that no one from the developer or the district has come up with a procedure to do so. The whole purpose of my long msg was to cite some of their shortcomings and suggest some opportunities to improve their communications. "Don't you agree all of this should be clear to all of us? If not, why not?" As I said, didn't you read the post?

No, I did not answer your question about the spending of amenity fees, primarily because I don't fully understand it myself and also because it is an evolving process. North of 466, there's an elected Amenity Authority that control, in some manner, spending of amenity fees. There will be one in the south and likely there will eventually be one south of 466A.

The reason I used the residence bond as an example is that it's easiest to explain. I agree that almost no one disputes the need for infrastructure, but many people are confused about the bond, as witnessed by the many posts on the subject from Day 1. And the questions you asked about what happens with follow-up costs --- great questions that could be readily addressed if the district had phase 2 orientation sessions as I suggested, or possibly in the detailed documents prepared by the developer as I suggested or, as I didn't suggest yet, in a real life regular Q&A process either in the newspaper or weekly on the WVLG noontime talk show. But they have none of those.

And no, I don't feel better now.





`

Dear Muncle:

You said: And no, I don't feel better now.
I will take you out for a beer sometime and you will feel better then.

Amen

Clear Summary
 

If you really want to understand this controversy, check out Ms Ritchie's concise and informative column at:

Lauren Ritchie Column

Or simply go to the Orlando Sentinel's website, search for Lauren Ritchie, and read today's offering.

Captain Frog. Nice to meet you. ;) I see that you are new. Sit down, sit a spell.

Muncle. You are right. So right.

I have found this old post, you can see the date. This is from Lauren Ritchie herself.

Bless your heart, Gracie. Thank you.

I was wondering something about the bond. Can I write off the bond on my income tax? Or just my actual mortgage???

The bond interest is not tax deductible.

But the normal property tax amount is also deductible + the interest on any mortgage + miscellaneous taxes (car excise tax etc.).

Wow Gracie, I had forgotten all about this thread. I could have saved myself a lot of typing on this subject recently by simply referring to it and the numerous posts by Muncle which were pretty much spot on.

Sadly, on Nov 7, 2009 Muncle lost his battle with lung cancer.

Good job Gracie. You get the gumshoe award for today.

hello villagers,

i have hopped on your forum to answer some of your questions and explain a little more. i’ll start by explaining how the villages CDDs differ from every other CDD in florida. that is the key to understanding why the IRS is on the villages case and not the case of any other CDD in the state. i noticed that many of you said this stuff is difficult to understand. it is, without question. but i’m going to give it a try. please email me with questions: lritchie@orlandosentinel.com

then i’ll respond to individuals – not the snippy ones. there’s no point in witty little exchanges bashing each other. this issue is too weighty for that sort of levity.

in florida, statutes (state laws) allow for the creation of a form of government called a community development district. the villages’ CDDs were created in the usual way, which is to ask the county commission to allow the district to be established. the commissions in lake, sumter and marion all said yes in this case.

the so-called “numbered districts” function in the same way as every other CDD in florida: they were created to pay for the infrastructure of the community – i.e., roads, sewer plants, water plants, street lights, stuff like that. the developer controlled all the seats on the governing board of the CD. that’s the way the law is set up, and that is perfectly legitimate. the CDDs sold bonds to pay for hard, tangible assets, such as those mentioned above. as the development was sold, more folks who owned lots were entitled to seats on the governing board. eventually, the homeowners controlled the board. the set fee rates so that the community would continue to run and the bonds could be repaid. i don’t personally care for this setup, but it’s not illegal. so, no problem.

however, the village center district and the sumter landing district work differently. those CDDs were created in the same way as the ones mentioned above.

however, no residents actually live in the VCCD and SLCDD districts. it’s mostly commercial property that is either owned or controlled by the developer. if you doubt this, get online and read the bond statements. they clearly state that the property is either owned or controlled by the morse family.

so the VCCD and SLCDD board members are morse employees or associates. they are looking after morse’s interests, not those of the villages’ residents. if you are thinking that they are concerned about the residents/homeowners, you should stop reading right here because i cannot help you.

those board members of the VCCD and SLCDD at various points since 2003 voted to buy both tangible assets, such as swimming pools and gate houses for example, and to buy the right to collect your ammenity fees for 30 years.

that’s a little weird – they bought a right. the right to collect fees is NOT a tangible asset. by that, i mean it is not something you can touch. it’s what is called a “blue sky” or “intangible” purchase because it’s an idea, not a “hard” asset.

so, these two developer-controlled districts bought -- from the developer -- the recreational ammenities and the right to collect the fees for 30 years. in that transaction, the developer essentially cashed in on thirty future years of fees for himself and bought the recreational assets from himself. if the board members had not voted to buy the right to collect fees, the boards would not have had to issue bonds. rather, gary morse and his family would have had to collect their ammentiy fees over a period of 30 years – not in a lump sum.

following me?

every bond must have a stream of money from which it will be repaid. in this case, your ammenity fees are pledged to repay those bonds.

and that’s the catch.

why is this a “catch” you might ask?

the answer is that this is the ultimate form of taxation without representation.

you as a homeowner have no representation on the VCDD or SLCDD – the developer owns or controls the majority of land and seats on the governing board. and despite the purchase with YOUR ammenity money, you do not now and never will own the assets. that’s because the developer controls the governing boards and owns most of the property in the district.

here’s where the IRS comes in.

to be able to issue tax-free bonds, governments have to be real governments, like cities or counties or townships or boroughs. they have to exist for the public good. they cannot exist to make one person rich or to conduct transactions that benefit a single person or persons. purchases have be what’s called “arm’s length” – in other words, “disinterested.” what that means is there can’t be a conflict of interest.

of course, in this case, there is a very big conflict of interest. the developer is essentially buying from himself and issuing tax-free bonds to do it – and you, the homeowner, are paying for it. and wont’ even own the assets when the bonds are paid off.

that annoys the IRS, whose agent says the VCDD and SLCDD bonds should not be tax-free because they don’t meet the tests of being for the interest of the people. in fact, the agent used the word “perverted.” he said the government so “perverted” the intent of how CDDs should function under florida law that the bonds should not be tax free. i totally agree with him, but you may have a different opinion, and that is OK because this is still america.

now, on to the comments, but totv says i must do it in another post. so stand by....

first, someone suggested that i get my information from the book leisureville. while i have corresponded with the author in the past, i have never read leisureville. it is about the culture and lifestyle of the villages. i don’t care a whit about either of those issues. my columns are about the underlying financial structure. my information comes strictly from public documents – documents that YOU can get if you wish.

…to dillywho who asked how i know that the CDD spent $209,000 so far on lawyers. i know this because the CDD is government, and records of governments using YOUR money are public. you can get these same records by doing the exact same thing i did -- email janet.tutt@districtgov.org regarding the question of whether i think the developer should take all the risk to provide great amenities (and they sure are) but charge you nothing….the answer is of course not. but neither do i think he should be charging you twice for the same amenities plus interest.

… to the shadow…yes, you understand this perfectly when you say that the IRS is after the districts, NOT the developer. and who is the districts? it is the developer, but his source of income is YOU, the homeowner.

...man about town asks whether the IRS is disallowing tax exempt status for all CDDs in Florida. the answer is a big NO. that has nothing to do with politics. see the explanation above.

…zcaveman speculates that my bosses assign me articles. um, no, dude. i’m a columnist, not a news reporter. i am not based in orlando, as someone else suggested. i have lived in lake county for 30 years and have worked for the sentinel all that time in a number of capacities.

…saratoga man asks how residents could be liable for any tax problems. even tho the village center district and the sumter landing district are controlled by the developer, all of the money to operate comes from your ammenity fees. last time i checked, roughly half of the $40million or so that the VCDD collects in fees is spent on repaying the bonds. .

…jim joe you say that your understanding is that the two commercial districts get ammenity fees and pay the lawyers with that money. yes. that is precisely how it works.

…willy…you have a perfect understanding.

…bogie shooter…you ask whether the lawyers really were paid from ammentiy fees. oh, yes, indeed. there is NO other source of $$ but YOU.

now, i want to correct a few errors in edvin’s post. see below:

Ritchie: As The Villages was built, its developer Gary Morse created a form of government called community development districts, the same type scrutinized in this column last week.

There are 10 of these ‘numbered’ CDDs that make up the residential homes in The Villages, the first of which was established way back in 1992. And these 10 numbered districts do not have nor do any of the residents have any ownership of any recreational or amenity facilities. There may be a beautiful club house with an olympic sized pool smack dab in the middle of one of these numbered districts, but it is not a part of it. this is not entirely correct. the 10 numbered districts do not, indeed, own the ammenities, whether they are pools or gatehouses. BUT the sad thing is that the villages homeowners ARE paying for these ammenities through fees that to to the village center and sumter landing districts. that’s because those ammenities were purchased from the developer by the district . that’s what the bonds were for.
Ritchie: In the Villages, two main community development districts have sold bonds to buy the infrastructure and recreational facilities — things like lights, roads, sewer and water plants, clubhouses, golf courses, gatehouses and more — from the developer.

The fact is that the developer built all of the executive golf courses, club houses, pools and the myriad recreational facilities with his own money for commercial purposes. And perhaps because it also included facilities for security, emergency, and fire protection, Florida allowed him to place those facilities under the two special CDDs that are the subject here. But you are misguiding your readers by implying that the monies received from these particular bonds were used to pay for the infrastructure of hundreds of miles of roads and sewers that are in the 10 numbered residential CDDs when in fact each of those numbered districts received their own bonds to pay for their infrastructures.
again, not entirely correct. the state of florida did NOT allow the developer to create districts for the reasons that edvin stated. developers are allowed to create districts to govern the area. the bonds that then were issued by the two main districts, especially the early bonds, DO include various infrastructure items. but the bonds the IRS district is most uncomfortable with are called “recreational revenue bonds,” and those include clubhouses, pools, golf courses, etc
Ritchie: That's the way it worked, too, in the other Florida districts that have issued bonds. However, The Villages bond deals differ in two key ways......

First, the seats on the district governing boards in other developments typically are turned over to the residents as buyers purchase lots and move in. Not so in The Villages, where the districts selling the bonds in question are controlled by the developer and deliberately are set up so he can keep them out of the hands of residents for as long as he wants.

Florida Chapter 190 specifies that voting in a CDD is based on land ownership, not residency[/B. And the residents of The Villages do not own any of the land, property or amenities that make up the two special CDDs. So quite simpy, they didn't, don't, and never will own or control those amenities. And furthermore, every one of the seventy five thousand or so residents of TV signed a contract acknowledging this when they purchased their home. Here is the specific paragraph:
<B>
4.1(g) Purchasers of Homesites further agree, by the acceptance of their deeds and the payment of the purchase price therefore, acknowledge that the purchase price was solely for the purchase of their Homesite or Homesites, and that the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, do not have any right, title or claim or interest in and to the recreational areas, security facilities, dedicated or reserved areas or facilities contained therein or appurtenant thereto, by reason of the purchase of their respective Homesites, it being specifically agreed that, (1) the Developer, its successors and assigns, is the sole and exclusive owner of the areas and facilities, and (2) the Contractual Amenities Fee is a fee for services and is in no way adjusted according to the cost of providing those services.

EDVin is correct in that residents are not charged. i was simply looking for another word for “homeowners.” everything in this scenario is based on the ownership of lots, not who lives there.
</B>
Ritchie: Second, these districts — remember that they're controlled by the developer — are using part of the bond money to buy "blue sky" from the developer. In this case, it is simply the right to collect assessment fees from residents. The developer gets all the fees in his bank account now instead of having to wait for them to dribble in over 30 years. Lucky residents get to repay the bond through fees — with interest — for 30 years to come.

Here’s where you and your cohorts really try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes because you always neglect to acknowledge that because of the unusual structure and contract on their amenities, the residents of The Villages have what amounts to virtual rent control of all of their wonderful amenities. And here’s the paragraph from the contract that enforces this:
<B>
4.1 (b) The monthly Contractual Amenities Fee set forth herein is based on the cost of living for the month of sale as reflected in the Consumer Price Index, U.S. Average of Items and Food, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor ("Index"). The month of sale shall be the date of the Contract for Purchase of the Homesite. There shall be an annual adjustment in the monthly Contractual Amenities Fee. The adjustment shall be proportional to the percentage increase or decrease in the Index.

edvin’s idea of rent control is pretty bizarre. HALF of what you pay goes to repay bonds –with interest. if these bonds have to be recalled, the only source of income is YOU, the owner. if you have a set amount you have to pay, then where you think the money will come from? it can come from one place and one only: it will come from that set ammenity fee you pay. if you get less in the way of ammenties because MORE than half is going to settle this mess, then so be it. </B>
Ritchie: What a beautifully magnificent source of unfettered, risk-free cash for the developer. The other districts in Florida buy things they can touch, such as water plants. "Blue-sky" transactions haven't been included in their bond deals.

[B]But as you yourself pointed out, 41% of those ‘other’ communities are in financial trouble. The Villages is not, in spite of what you would like everyone believe.

the problem with edvin’s logic here is simple. first, these communities DO NOT operate like the villages VCDD or SLCDD. they are not comparable. second, the communities that are in trouble are the ones where the developer either went belly up or could not sell enough lots to make the bond payments. neither is the case in the villages. the developer is VERY well capitalized, thanks you YOU, the homeowner.
Ritchie: Community development districts that buy infrastructure from developers are a rip-off to the consumer, never mind The Villages' "blue sky" purchases, which are just a secondary piece of legal thievery.

In subdivisions without districts that issue bonds, buyers pay for the infrastructure in the price of the house. In those with districts, they do, too. But in addition, they pay a second time for that infrastructure — with interest — as they pay off the bonds, which often add an extra $20,000 to the price of a house.
this comes from simple observation. consider this: clearly, the villages has more ammenities than any other community. but consider your 1,500 square foot house or whatever. what price could you buy that same size house for at say, royal harbour, or arlington ridge or some other community? it is roughly the same price, i believe. you aren’t getting a discount. so, some other communities have at least SOME of the same ammenities and those folks are paying the same amount. but YOU are paying another $20K to $25K extra for your ammenities. plus interest on bonds. ouch.
Where is this coming from? I’m afraid you’re losing it dear girl. Sometimes I think ideas drop from your head to your tongue like candy from a gum ball machine.


Ritchie: ……. The district already has spent more than $209,000 of residents' money so far, nearly all on high-powered lawyers on both coasts.

Here again we have a very misleading statement. The two special CDDs have not spent one dime of the resident’s money. They have in fact spent $209,000 (or whatever) of their own money on legal defense. Yes, yes we all know the source of that money, it’s the amenity fees paid by the residents. But the moment those amenity fees are deposited into the account of those two CDDs it’s no longer the residents’ money. However, the annual maintenance fee paid by residents to their respective numbered residential CDD is their money because they have ownership in that CDD and a vote in how that money is spent.

Still having trouble with this? Here’s a simple example. You decide to order cable service and sign up for a two year contract with a sweet deal monthly price. Part way into the contract, the cable company gets into a legal battle over something and spends a ton of legal fees to straighten it out. Whose money is paying for this? Why the cable companys' of course. Can the cable company raise the fee to cover the legal fees? Yes but only after the contract ends and at the risk of losing you as a customer. But the two CDD’s can’t do that with the amenity fee. It’s fixed at the time of the original sale with annual increases limited to the CP Index and the term of the contract is for the life of the residence. So who cares how that money is spent.

this analogy is not appropriate. cable companies are private, for-profit businesses. the CDD is a government, and as such is supposed to act in the best interest of its citizens, the people who are paying taxes. in this case, the “tax” or ammenity fee, is paid by people who are not living in the district, thus the IRS issue. EdVIn asks who cares how the money is spent? the answer is YOU should care. of half your ammentity fee weren’t going to repay bonds that were issued with the sole purpose of making the develper rich, then you would have some seriously cool ammenities.

folks, if you’ve stuck with me for this long, thank you very much for your attention. this is a tough issue and very complicated.

i’d like to make a distinction here. lots of folks seem to think i’m a “village-hater.” that’s just wrong. i don’t care a whit about the lifestyle one way or the other.

what i don’t like is seeing retired people getting ripped off. i consider community development districts in general, and these in particular, a rip-off to buyers. that’s my opinion, and yours can certainly be different. but yours is completely invalid if you don’t undertand how this works. my columns are focused the financial deals and on showing you how these deals have created your community. if you totally understand and are OK with that, so be it. but i have zero interest in debating your lifestyle

i wish you all the best. heck, in a few years, i hope to be enjoying my own retirement.

lauren ritchie

if tax free bonds were sold, who were the underwriters and who was bond counsel? Liability would seem to lie with those who benefitted from the transaction and those who provided required opinions about taxability.

Hi Lauren,

First, thank you for posting here and for agreeing to respond to questions. You have taken a lot of heat on this forum for your opinion columns about the bonds.

I have a comment and some questions. The comment concerns the fact that the central CDDs, rather than the developer per se, will collect the amenitiy fees for 30 years. I do understand that TV homeowners will not own the amenities at the end of the 30 years. But it also is true that if the developer were still collecting the fees directly, and had not established the two central CDDs, the homeowners still would not own the amenities after 30 years. Same difference on that particular point.

I also think I understand the IRS agent's reasoning in questioning the tax-exempt status of the central CDDs. Whether the developer and his attorneys found a clever and legal way to establish the two CDDs to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance the future fees, or whether the IRS eventually rules against the developer remains to be seen.

However, if the IRS rules that the central CDDs did not meet the criteria for issuing tax-exempt bonds, wouldn't the developer be responsible for paying the taxes on the bonds, inasmuch as he owns and controls the two CDDs? What is your opinion on this?

I suppose the developer could try to use amenity fees to pay the taxes and refinance the bonds, but then I would think 80,000 + homeowners could justifyably and easily get class-action status to fight such action. Yes, that would be a costly mess, but it also seems so unlikely, don't you think? The developer would never sell another house, here or anywhere. Has anyone ever managed to cheat 80,000 people and stay in business.

If Morse found a legal instrument for financing the future amenity fees, what of it? We TVers wouldn't own the amenities after 30 years with or without the two central CDDs. If the IRS rules against him, he'll owe back taxes, not us. Am I wrong?

I also agree with the previous poster. Obviously, bond counsel approved the sale. Also, what, if anything, do you think would be the repercussion to the bond holders?