by Paul Bonnell, September 24, 2019
Something is inherently wrong with HSV assessment policy
Part of a comment on a recent thread titled “No Excuse for Vandalism or Violence in HSV,” prompted me to examine and question HSV Assessment policies a little closer. Sometimes when things are staring you right in the face, you tend to overlook them. Considering that HSV assessments always seemed to be so reasonable, I never paid them much mind until now. Especially, since increased assessments and/or special assessments and fees seem to be a more frequent occurrence.
According to information in that discussion, the current assessment rate is one-half of one percent of a property valued at $160,000…or, .005 (.5%) which is applicable to all HSV properties. Sounds good, huh? Look closer. Properties of lesser value (say $100,000) are contributing at a higher rate (.8%) and properties of a higher value (say $500,000) are contributing at a lower rate (.16%). In fact, if you’re a fortunate homeowner of a $1,000,000 property in HSV, your contribution rate appears to be a lofty .08%. So the owner of a $100,000 property pays 10 times the contribution rate as the owner of a $1,000,000 property. There is something inherently wrong with this scenario, at least for the fair-minded.
Cooper assessment model was great…for its time
What about the Cooper model of “one property – one rate?” The concept of Cooper’s creation was great…for its time. At its inception, HSV properties were more equally sized and valued. The Village property diversity has grown to a point that has outgrown the fairness of the original concept. The concept has already been thrown out the window with the 2-tier assessment, anyway.
Seems this might explain the frantic push for the CMP. Flood the Village with pocket neighborhoods and $200,000 homes that will effectively contribute at a higher rate than more valuable properties thereby assuring the “elite” can reside here virtually free, comparatively speaking.
Time to be FAIR…to everyone
A lot of time, effort and money has been and is spent trying to figure out how to manipulate assessments and fees that ultimately and unfairly benefit the more well-to-do. The solution can be as simple as a flat, across the board assessment rate. Bang, zoom…all HSV financial problems solved in one fell swoop. A .5% effective assessment (or whatever rate you want) for everyone. The ailing widow/widower on Social Security who struggles to make their .8% as well as the millionaire who can make his/her .08% payment from his spare change. Dump the one lot/one fee model…it’s already dead anyway. Bury it. It’s time to be FAIR….to everyone.
As an ordinary citizen, the above represents my own view of the effect of some of HSV policies and concern that the trending negative and manipulative managerial practices of late will be driving people out rather than bring them in. Referencing the above link and others, it’s noted that a number of people have already left the Village from assessment shenanigans and many who are seriously considering that option. Also, when some of the above information is realized by prospective clients via social media and the like, a second thought would be given as to whether the Village is as fair as it’s made out to be…
I’m no expert in finances, bylaws or legalese. Just an ordinary citizen who is fair-minded. I hope you all are, too, because a change like this would affect everyone to some degree. To save the village as we know it, In my opinion, it’s either something like this or something like the CMP may destroy a lifestyle we’ve come to cherish.
Ready now for the analyses, discussion and likely shredding of such a plan. Try to be kind and possibly present alternative ideas.
by Paul Bonnell, September 24, 2019
Wes
09/24/2019 — 9:12 am
Why should people that own more expensive houses pay more? What additional amenities do they receive? That is what your assessments go to pay, in addition to the salaries of the people employed here The plan presented sounds more like an added tax which the people who own more expensive houses already pay, compared to less expensive homes.
If the assessments need to rise then do it in equal amounts regardless of the house price.
Seems when additional funds are received here, from assessments, we end up with additional headcount instead of repairing facilities. Just an observation.
Mary Szczepaniak
09/24/2019 — 9:16 am
I’ve thought about this, too.
Anonymous
09/24/2019 — 9:34 am
I think a lot of people here to be fair minded. We need a deal. Fire Nalley, hire a General Manager mandated to clean house of pay grades 10 and up. Hire more grunt workers that can fix this place up with the payroll savings.
Board can then get a big raise in assessments, like Paul has suggested. Target Marketing Golf Retirees with the raise in assessments. Pretty simple. Let’s make a deal.
Karen Daigle Lundberg
09/25/2019 — 11:28 pm
Anonymous, let me first state that I do not understand or agree with people posting anonymously. If you have something to say, say it, but be brave enough to put your name with it. I am not posting to agree or disagree with your idea. My only reason for responding is to ask you to consider that our very kind “employees” of HSV are hard workers, have to work under very hard circumstances, especially in this day and age, and to call them “grunt workers” is truly insulting. Maybe a better choice of words the next time.
Ron Williams
09/24/2019 — 9:35 am
I totally disagree with this proposal. Our assessments support amenities that everyone has the same access to. Just because I paid more for my house doesn’t mean I use amenities, roads or infrastructure more than the next guy…I probably use them less than most because I don’t play golf and only live in the Village part of the time.
If you want to talk fair, start charging those that use the amenities enough to support that amenity.
Anonymous
09/24/2019 — 9:36 am
How about an assessment plan that is based on amenity usage.
I don’t play golf, won’t ever swim in the new pool, I don’t walk the trails, I don’t play pickleball, tennis or boche ball or mini-golf. I don’t use the dog park. I pretty much love living here as a retired person, on my own, by myself, keeping to myself.
The amenity I use are the key-card gates.
I already pay extra for trash pickup, water and sewage. If I owned a boat and trailer I’d have to pay extra for that. If I want my yard debris picked up I pay extra for that. If I want an appliance hauled off, I pay extra for that. If I want to plant a shrub in my yard I have to get a permit and I pay extra for that. There’s pretty much NOTHING outside of breathing the air that the POA doesn’t charge me for.
So please, you can take your idea of property value-based assessments and peddle it at some other retirement community.
No one here in HSV will be interested in your so called “fair plan!’
Please! Give me a break!
And let’s not lose sight of the fact that the 2-Tier Plan was rammed down our throats just like the CMP was – just like the unwanted community pool was.
Further, the $68.50 we ALL pay, whether we own a run down shack or a million dollar mansion on Lake Balboa, is a BARGAIN FOR EVERYONE compared to any other retirement community in America!
If you’re so keen on giving the POA more money to squander, you have our permission to grab your checkbook and donate until you feel you’ve paid your fair share. The rest of us have already paid our dues to a crew that does not know the first thing about how to manage money.
Please! Give me a break!
Sue Sutley
09/24/2019 — 1:54 pm
Anonymous, wish I knew who you were so I’d know who I agree with 100%. We are a village and we all should pay the same as an investment in OUR Village, no matter whether you use 1 of or all the amenities. All of the amenities positively effect our property value whether used or not. Divide and conquer is not beneficial to any of us and in the long run makes it easier for us all to lose.
Pat McCullough
09/24/2019 — 9:45 am
People who own larger more expensive properties pay more taxes and have the same amenities as most others in the community in which they live. Paying higher taxes means you are fortunate enough to be earning the higher income. It is one of the oldest and basic facts of life in the vast majority of communities world wide. People with homes worth let’s say $800,000 and only paying $38.00 per month is just plain wrong and there is no doubt we must correct this. Not an easy issue to work out must be done as one step in correcting the things that are wrong here.
Wes
09/24/2019 — 10:06 am
Pat
I’m assuming you meant 68 per month and not 38. What is wrong with paying the same regardless if you have an 800000 or an 80000 house? The 68 per month goes to pay for amenities, which again, you pay an additional amount to use.
Anonymous
09/24/2019 — 11:36 am
Wes, it is Pat again. I was off base in my comment……I got a little tangled up between property tax and assessment . Big house people do pay more of the freight via property tax. Yep, I did mean $68 per month . This is still crazy cheap for what we have here. Sorry for the mix up.
Jim Langford
09/25/2019 — 3:31 pm
I am glad you straighten that out. I was reading the article and thinking where in the world did this come from?
Anonymous
09/24/2019 — 10:23 am
This concept was debated. during the two-tier assessment increase. It is simply not workable without adding the expense of a department of people to the POA. It would take these additional people to keep up with the forever changing property values. Houses sell, which would require an adjustment, and people partition for a different valuation put on their home. Not to mention the change in home values due to the market. Also, the value of one’s home doesn’t determine that person’s net worth. This approach would not only be unworkable without a great deal of added expense, but totally unfair.
Anonymous
01/05/2020 — 8:00 pm
Property valuation is clearly stated on all property tax invoices which is public knowledge. CE your committee is either stupid or biased, most likely both.
Debbie
09/24/2019 — 10:32 am
Just because you own a more expensive house doesn’t mean you can afford a higher assessment. Maybe this house was bought with the proceeds from the sale of another home or you inherited it, but your still on a fixed income. Not saying that assessments shouldn’t go up, they should and will over time. Don’t judge what people can afford until you walk in their shoes. Just saying…
Sam
09/24/2019 — 10:54 am
If we ever go the way of Bella Vista, we will be getting a city tax based on the property values. Bella Vista is still stuck with their HOA dues (only $24 I believe) as well as city taxes now.
Al
09/24/2019 — 11:00 am
Totally disagree. You have equal access to roads, amenities, etc.. no matter what the value of your home, so paying the same assessment is appropriate.
Antsy
09/24/2019 — 11:49 am
The concept of Hot Springs Village as a retirement community with a level monthly assessment was a good one for the developer, while it was in development. There was a revenue stream and lot sales and construction was humming along. All of our amenities were being paid for with the level assessment and fees, plus the developer had control, set priorities, and wisely managed the property.
That business scenario is long past!
On the surface, does the CMP return to the past? I don’t think so considering the plurality of the management by a BOD and POA employees. Would a supplemental assessment on property value be fair today now that the BOD and POA is managing the property is the real question.
Does property value of the village assets factor in to the true property value of each home!
Should lake front property owners pay an additional fee for an amenity that they because of location of their property can enjoy, predicated on the fact of the limited shoreline (beaches, access points, other lake front amenities, etc.) assets not accessible to other home owners? Is a golf course view a like asset?
Just because you don’t play golf, swim, fish, walk trails, etc. doesn’t give anyone an exemption.
In my opinion … just something to consider by members!
BOB MCCLESKEY
09/24/2019 — 11:54 am
What I find ironic and a bit depressing is that residents of HSV willingly support the school district in which they live at a substantially higher rate than they are willing to support the Village in which they live. If you doubt that, do the math, compare what you pay in local property taxes (70+% of which goes to your school district), then compare that to what you pay in property owner annual assessments. Further, what most property owners are quick to discount is the flawed funding model which Cooper created that depends on non-resident property owners supporting (subsidizing) residents and many of the “amenities” which we enjoy. That we have nearly 11,00 “non-performing” properties should not be a surprise.
Anonymous
09/24/2019 — 12:23 pm
No easy answer to this one. I will still support amenities I don’t use. I’m good with a rate hike. But we do have a lot of people that cannot afford rate hike on assessments.
I think a lot of people here want to be fair minded. But the POA board has the power and ONLY THE BOD has the power to get it done. We need a deal!! 1) Fire Nalley, and hire a General Manager that is mandated to clean house of the bloated pay grades 10 and up. Replace those excessively unnecessary Chiefs with some seriously skilled personnel that can fix our buildings and golf courses and systems. 2) Renounce the CMP.
Board can then and only then get a big raise in assessments, like Paul Bonnell has suggested. Target Marketing Golf Retirees with this raise in assessments. Let’s make a deal.
Melvin west
09/24/2019 — 12:56 pm
I want the POA to use our money wisely for what we have now and we paid for. Not some pie in the sky Skeme to make pocket homes that by the way are going up as we speak. Let’s work together and demand that we don’t want HUGE growth. Too many cars n other vehicles now. We, I hope want growth but not out of hand growth. I do not want to see bumper to bumper traffic on Balboa at compute times. We are mostly retirees and we bought in here for quieter lives without the outside hustle and bustle.
Tom Blakeman
09/24/2019 — 1:31 pm
Wow, lots of controversy on this one! My take, which goes along with some, is that no plan will work so long as we keep squandering money with a tax, spend, subsidize and waste model. If you think about it we are operating just like the Federal Government. About the only difference is we don’t print our own money. Hey POA and BOD, there’s an idea you haven’t tried yet!
Paul Bonnell
09/24/2019 — 3:15 pm
The original topic was not a call to raise assessments per-say. It is a message to the membership to look at assessments in a new light and realize the disparity that exists as a matter of fairness to everyone. The figures presented there are merely existing figures. Bringing the issue up for discussion and varying points of view is the entire point. In fact, I mentioned you could insert any rate you want as opposed to the current .5%
Doing some more quick math comparisons (won’t bore with numbers to be brief) It appears to me that if the annual assessment rate were to be dropped to around .15% under a fair application rate equal to everyone it would be roughly equal to the current total.
Also might be helpful for those with negative responses to offer alternatives to consider.
George
09/24/2019 — 3:30 pm
I applaud those who are willing to express their ideas and appreciate the time and thought that went into this suggestion. However, I would not be in favor of this idea even though I would be one of the beneficiaries of its intended favor. I live in a low/middle priced home.
Instead, I agree with the most compelling argument against it being that the “rich” would continue to receive the same benefits as me while paying more for it. That makes no sense to me and is a perfect formula to keep rich people out of HSV.
Secondly, the administration of the plan would cost too much and be a constant source of controversy that none of us would like to see.
The Dues must go up. Everyone must come to grips with this inevitable reality. We must accept the fact that the cost of a prime rib at the store or a box of popcorn at the movies is going up. The cost of primary required staple items will continue to rise. Does anyone remember paying $.26 for a gallon of gasoline? That is gone forever and so also eventually will be the $68.50/month we pay to live in this wonderful place.
The big problem for all villagers is that the POA, and General Manager (self-defined as the CEO), want to spend our precious funds on things of no known benefit to those of us who must pay for it. Until there is fiscal responsibility shown by this organization or some succeeding organization, we do not want to throw good money after bad. It is just that simple.
Give us sound leadership that listens to what the people have to say and I believe we can reach agreement on raising the dues to cover maintenance of HSV. But don’t run off into the weeds with our money ever again.
Mary Odom
09/24/2019 — 9:39 pm
Agree totally!!!
Julie
09/24/2019 — 4:39 pm
They don’t need any more money.
Tom Blakeman
09/24/2019 — 5:20 pm
Before we raise assessments, no matter how it is done or on what “formula”, we first need to stop subsidizing things we don’t need and activities which should be self supporting.
Three prime examples: Golf, Restaurants, and Land & Homes. Between those three we are losing something like $3 million per year. That is about the same amount (or more) per year that the Two Tier increase generated.
No one wants to subsidize golf courses they do not use and restaurants they do not eat at. They certainly do not want to pay for real estate employees to compete with the 100 or so Realtors both inside and just outside the gates.
Then we need to have all the roadsides and utility right-of-ways looking like the entry roadway to Granada golf course and Diamante do. And, we need a REAL gate system. And, we need to clean up the older, poorly maintained and seedy looking commercial areas. And, I could go on. BTW, it’s called MAINTENANCE and MANAGEMENT.
Then we can get serious about assessment talk. Until then, all the talk is just ‘false narratives’ about “broken funding models”.
Paul Bonnell
09/24/2019 — 9:12 pm
Thanks for pointing out how much better roadways are in certain parts of the Village as opposed to others. Preferential treatment in maintenance issues is another example of a hidden amenity that most of the village rarely sees. Kind of makes my point. How are the roads and low hanging branches around your area? But, I digress. Wrong time for this topic. Got it….
Anonymous
11/27/2019 — 6:44 pm
Paul Bonnell, September 24, 2019, To all who think all assessments should be the same: because my property tax is more than others, shall I call the tax collector and reason that I do not use the roads more than anyone else and therefore should not pay more than the lowest property taxpayer?
Anonymous
01/05/2020 — 8:07 pm
Paul Bonnell09/24/2019 — 9:12 pm, Your call to realize the disparity that exists as a matter of fairness to everyone is spot on. All governments in the US use this method for funding infrastructure. Evidently, this bunch lives in the Twilight Zone and has been for quite some time.
Minn Daly
09/24/2019 — 9:42 pm
thank you Tom Blakeman! Infrastructure is in poor shape. Maintenance & cleanup of Balboa Club, & other structures need immediate attention. Your statements are so correct. Respectfully, Minn Daly
Newby
09/25/2019 — 11:48 am
If I read the original post correctly, assessments are currently based on property values? If so, I call BS on that! ALL should pay the same amount, if you don’t want to live in a golf or trail community, move to an ungated neighborhood without an association. The whole idea of the “gated” community is to have certain amenities (whether you use them or not) and keep guidelines (such as no trailers or trashy homes) intact. We DO pay extra for certain things we use, such as the dog park, fitness center, pools – and golf courses! So if you don’t use these, you are actually saving money! Our assessment goes to “community” property, such as roads, police, etc. And it is CHEAP compared to many other gated communities. As far as how the money is disbursed, that is another issue. I think ONE fee for all property owners is fair, including undeveloped lots. You save enough in taxes on a lot. Lot owners enjoy the same amenities. If they don’t want to, sell the lot!
Julie
09/26/2019 — 10:50 am
I am fairly well off so will send an extra 10 dollars each month. If we all did this imagine what they could do!!
Anne
09/26/2019 — 2:15 pm
Julie, your suggestion would translate to an additional $1,080,000 a year if every improved property contributed. If every non delinquent lot contributed, then it would result in $2,760,000 Considering our current budget is about $37,000,000, we would need at least 10 years to catch up to delinquent infrastructure and maintenance needs. That being said, please remember the vote on declaration changes this past election renders all this a mute point for another 6 years. We voted down the opportunity to change the declarations more frequently than 7 years.
Tom Blakeman
09/26/2019 — 5:09 pm
Again, let me reiterate: If POA didn’t squander what they get there would not be a problem.
Julie
09/29/2019 — 4:07 am
I think that you are right. I am not going to send the extra 10 bucks.
Those idiots would just throw it away like they always do on Troon or some other nonsense. Fools.
Not one of these holier than thou crazies could run a profitable business if they had to. Not one.
I am sick of all this. Sick.