Throughout fast-growing Hillsborough County, community development districts are a popular way of financing new subdivisions. 

CDDs offer easy access to multimillion-dollar funding, at low risks to developers, but considerable risks to homeowners. 

These are among the conclusions of a report issued by the City-County Planning Commission. 

The authors warn that homeowners -- and the public at large -- might not be benefitting as much as developers say they do from these bond-financed expenditures. What's more, CDDs exist with little oversight from government under state law. And local officials who wish to impose controls lack the power to do so. 

"The initial research we did told us, 'We need to look at these things more,' " said commission planner William Augustine, an author of the report. 

CDDs are considered local governments that allow developers to raise money by issuing tax-free municipal bonds. After running the all-powerful CDD board for the first six years, developers gradually transfer control to homeowners, who become responsible for debts often totalling millions of dollars. 

"Establishing a CDD basically shifts the cost of construction and maintenance of the on-site infrastructure from the developers to future residents," the report says. 

The commission staff began studying local CDDs after receiving a number of complaints over the past year, Augustine said. The commission, after hearing a presentation on Monday, voted to pass the report on to the four local governments it represents -- Hillsborough County, Tampa, Temple Terrace and Plant City. 

The report counted 17 CDDs throughout Hillsborough, including parts of Westchase and Cheval, along with the area surrounding Westfield Shoppingtown Citrus Park. It did not include Heritage Isles, a CDD in New Tampa. For the most part, the report said that CDD communities are "high quality" and offer homeowners upscale living. 

But the report raised alarm bells as well. 

In traditional projects, developers put up private financing and pass those costs onto the home buyer at closing. It is not clear whether CDD developers pass their cost savings on to homeowners, the report said. 

In addition, CDD developers often claim they are contributing to the public infrastructure, which includes the attractive amenities that must be open to all residents in and around the community. But in reality, planners said, CDD developers are not building new roads or sewers that would not be required of conventional developers. 

Without further study, it also is unclear how often residents living outside CDD communities actually use the amenities, such as golf courses and swimming pools. 

Citing information in an Orlando Sentinel series two years ago, the report suggested that developer-controlled CDDs have a built-in potential for conflicts of interests. One such conflict comes from developer-controlled CDDs practice of buying land from the developer without any scrutiny from the government or homeowners. 

The report suggested amending state law to give homeowners a greater voice through a board of supervisors. Another suggestion would require developer-controlled CDDs to determine maximum annual increases in the fees homeowners pay to maintain common areas and, in some cases, pay off bond debts. 

Augustine and other planners also said they are interested in exploring how to give local governments more power to review CDD proposals. The key is changing the law, he said. 

"It's a state but not local issue," he said.