By Michael R Shannon, October 30, 2021
During the buildup to the vote on the assessment increase, there was much discussion of the maintenance shortfall, but the POA board seemed to be oblivious to another shortfall that I believe will determine the outcome of the assessment vote.
That shortfall is the board’s Trust Shortfall. A shortfall that dates back to the last time property owners were asked to vote in favor of a major increase in their assessment rate. The situation then and the situation now are almost identical.
Does this argument sound familiar?
“We are facing the reality that critical infrastructure repairs have been deferred because of declining assessment revenues. Now we need to change our business model by recognizing the need for additional revenue to restore and maintain services and facilities that, in turn, will strengthen property values. A rate increase is the best action that can be implemented to take care of our most pressing infrastructure and capital needs. The time has come to invest in our future to restore the financial health of the Village.”
You’re probably thinking the above the argument the current POA board is using to convince voters to pass the assessment increase. But it’s not. That language is taken verbatim from the campaign material used to persuade POA members to DOUBLE their assessments only six years ago. The argument is identical to the justification now and our situation today is also almost identical.
The question is, where did the money go that was supposed to solve “critical infrastructure repairs” and why are we being asked to pay more to solve a problem that was supposed to be solved six years ago?
That is the origin of the Trust Shortfall. Just as the current board is bound by contracts and legal agreements negotiated by past boards, the board is also burdened by trust issues created by past boards.
That is a fact that until very recently the board refused to acknowledge. In their eyes, they are Tabula Rasa and we are lucky to have them.
That didn’t last long. In belated recognition of the Trust Shortfall, the board is now trying to compose a jackleg resolution that will bind future boards to the promises made by this board. They call it a “Bold Action” that “establishes a commitment by current and future Boards of Directors” to spend the assessment increase where they’ve promised to spend it. This new policy will require a “supermajority” to repeal.
What they don’t tell you is how many votes constitute a “supermajority”.
There is a reason for that. On a board with six members (the current size), a “supermajority” (typically two–thirds) would be four votes, which just happens to be what it takes to pass or repeal a question now. On a seven-member board, it would be five votes. The “Bold Action” is so much hogwash.
It’s all part of a pattern. And the goal is to avoid using a Special Assessment to fix the maintenance backlog. The options the board was presented by the FRATF committee were designed to lead to a predetermined conclusion: A large assessment increase for homeowners. The one option that would have fixed the maintenance shortfall and the trust shortfall was a special assessment along with a smaller increase in the regular assessment.
The special assessment would have legally bound the board to spend that money only on the infrastructure requirements and the regular assessment increase would have provided money for future maintenance when the special assessment ended.
Instead, the FRATF committee suggested the special assessment without a regular assessment increase, which made that choice a non–starter.
The only choice property owners are given is approving a series of blank checks for the board to spend without a legally–binding method of accountability.
This is a bad idea because this board is not deserving of your trust.
Its behavior after the assessment campaign began proves my point.
The POA board is the functional equivalent of a city council and the assessment increase election is the same as a charter revision or bond issue election. In a municipality, after the council approves the vote for the charter revision or bond issue, the council’s role is over. Usually, an outside committee is formed of civic leaders and they raise private money to support a public campaign in favor of passing the bond issue or revising the charter.
Public funds, meaning tax dollars, are never spent during the election to support the ballot question.
But that’s not the way it’s working here in HSV.
After all the self-righteousness, sneering claims of superior knowledge, and the my–way–or–the–highway air of superiority displayed by board members, we learn a board that’s telling property owners to dig into their pocketbooks to support the assessment increase, is too cheap to use their own money to support the vote ‘Yes’ campaign.
Instead, an unethical, corner-cutting board is dipping into the property owner’s till and using POA money to pay for campaign material to support the ‘Yes’ vote.
In a municipal election that would result in an indictment, impeachment, or a recall. In HSV the board yawns and then doubles down by banning vote ‘No’ signs from the same POA property that proudly displays vote ‘Yes’ signs.
This is an arrogant display of raw power and a hint of what is in store in the future. This board does not deserve your respect or your vote.
I will be voting ‘No’ on this assessment increase and every other assessment increase until HSV property owners are presented with a vote that includes a special assessment and a reasonable regular assessment increase.
It is the only way that guarantees this high–and–mighty board and subsequent boards will spend the money as promised.
About Michael R. Shannon:
He has been a regular speaker on political commercials, crisis communication, and public relations for Campaigns & Elections. He has also addressed the National League of Cities, conducted seminars for Information Management and The University of Arkansas – Little Rock, and performed as the keynote speaker for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
He is a multiple first-place winner in the American Assn. of Political Consultant’s Pollie awards. Shannon won back–to–back first place Silver Microphone Awards for best radio commercial and best radio campaign. He is also a three-time winner of the prestigious Gold statue at the Houston International Film Festival. Shannon won first place in the Vision Awards for television. He has also won consecutive Silver Microphone awards for best radio campaign.
He writes a column for Newsmax.com with Michael Reagan and had his own weekly column with the Cagle Syndicate.
He has lived in HSV since 2020.
* * *
Note from Cheryl: Mr. Shannon can be reached on Twitter under the name @ReluctantUser2. Additionally, he is the author of A Conservative Christian’s Guidebook for Living in Secular Times (Now With Added Humor!), which is available here.
Thank you for reading. If you like, please comment below. We love to hear your opinion, but civil discourse is important. Comments must be made using your first and last real name, or they will not be accepted. Click here to join our private Facebook Group. Be sure to bookmark this website.
Tom Blakeman
10/30/2021 — 5:38 pm
Thank you Michael R. Shannon. Eloquently stated! And so, so true.
Robert Busse
10/30/2021 — 6:37 pm
For a person who claims to be an authority on and have the answer to so many things Shannon should not be questioning what a “super majority is”. He answers his own question. We have a 7 member Board, but the Board President does not vote, except to break ties. 4 votes decides most votes. The “super majority” is 5 votes of the 6 Directors voting.
With reaards the special assessment claim, that kind of assessment is for a special project, usually for a specific amount and lasting for a specific time. How do you write up a Special assessment for something that will be taking severral years to catch up on (complete) and there is an unknown cost because they do not know the seriousness and extent of deterioration until they get into fixing. Additionally, the “special” has to be fopr specific items. It can’t be for something general like repair, upgrade and modernize all the neglected infrastructure, assets and amenities of HSV. And what happens if something major happens to the waste water plant (example). But it is not part of a “special assessment”? Your wanting all the money to be tied up in old maintenance, so where does the big money come from to fix the water plant?
Our Board has set up a program where each year money is to be earmarked to get maintenance done over an extended period of time and can react to new emergencies as they may happen. With “specials”, owners must vote to get money for every large project. JJust the voting procedures takes time (months) and money ($40-50 K).
Michael R Shannon
10/30/2021 — 7:50 pm
You need to read and comprehend before you post. We now have a six-member board as one seat is vacant.
“Your wanting all the money to be tied up in old maintenance, so where does the big money come from to fix the water plant?”
Again, read closer. It comes from the regular assessment increase I support.
You are aping the anti-special assessment hogwash the board uses. If cities and school boards can pass bond issues with multiple projects over a set period of time HSV can, too. And remember the special committee has provided all the figures we need, sayeth the board. There is a way what is lacking is the will.
Susan Posner
10/31/2021 — 3:39 am
Deferred maintenance; well since the doubling of assessments starting in 2017 there has been a whole lot of repair, restoration and equipment replacement done. But also too much non maintenance projects, non essential created salaried positions over essential workers, and little concern for emergency reserves all along. In 2014 $6 million was spent upgrading the water treatment plant to 6mgd capacity with ability of 9mgd capacity projected by 2050. Riparian right to current source, Lake Largo storage capacity of that, plus alternative if needed to Lake Ouatchita pipeline as we are part of the mid Arkansas alliance to have enough potable water. What is missing is the reduction in recreational water use to ensure potable water capacity during drought periods. A 2 tier(separated) property assessments made up by a BOD and GM several years ago outside the governing association document that never had such 2 tier(separated) property assessment(was never voted on by property owners) Yet no separated property owners voting allotted on an annual assessment increases of this so called 2 tiered. Makes different property tier voters vote for the others assessment increase? A pattern of turn over of GMs, stubbornly disregarding the developer when the developer is still developing and BOD members quitting or being removed by other board members for insignificant reasons. The problem isn’t lack of funds, but mismanagement of funds. The problem isn’t in the governing documents, but in the governance of. The problem isn’t in what is needed, but in defaulting it for the wanted. That’s where that BOD fiduciary duty comes into play, yet is still sorely disregarded. There can be no trust from property owners with those kind of practices. So it warrants a different approach to assessment increase and governance than is currently being offered. It’s NO
Chris von Aspern
10/31/2021 — 11:09 am
Well said …
Chris von Aspern
10/31/2021 — 11:19 am
Thank you Mr Shannon…
Robert Busse
10/31/2021 — 12:53 pm
Mr. Shannon, I am well aware we only have six directors presently. It is apparent that your future or long term is only about 5-6 month. You know there is another BOD election coming this spring and we will fill the vacant director’s slot. I think we should be looking much further into the future than you aparently do.
Additionally, you nay sayers cite needed change for not approving the increase. You all insist a change here and a change there. Unfortunately no one has come up with what those change specifically need to be nor are there any even sketchy plans as to how to acheive those changes. And let’s be realistic any change is not going to happen or occur overnight. Change takes time! Depending on the what and how of any change, it could take years. So, while we all are waiting for the nay sayers to agree that their changes have happened to their liking, the Village continues to deteriorate and we continue to have bigger financial problems, because overall costs increase higher/faster than the Southern CPI allow each year.
Again, Mr. Shannon you are not considering enough. In my example the new money is all tied up in maintence. You say we have all the regular assessment money to pay for emergencies or new needed projects. I remind you that presently ALL the revenue raised from the present membership/dues fees do NOT cover the single expense of
wages ans salarieries and employee benefits!.
You seem to be touting pay for maintenance with bond issues. Most financual people people will agree that a bond issue is extremely lomg term and with the continuing interest costs much more than most realize. With a bond, you spend much more and are paying for a project many, many years after the need.
I do support change. Things are far from the way they should be in my oppinion. But costs continue to rise and the present inflation is now said to be lasting much longer and continue to get higher with greater federal spending and the printing of more money! HSV needs more money to operate until we can initiate change get things the way we want them.
Michael R Shannon
10/31/2021 — 1:09 pm
You are replying to a column that I did not write. If you wish to discuss what was published, fine, but I won’t waste time on your wild flights of fancy.
Robert Busse
10/31/2021 — 3:07 pm
Mr. Shannon, I am not wanting to discuss the subject of the coming increase wioth someone who lets someone use his/her name on a posting and then claims hhe/she did not write it. Or do we have more than one Michael R. Shannon in HSV. Whatever. With your comment “your wild flights of fancy” I can already see that you are a very opinionated person and very closed minded. Your kind of discussions get absolutely nowhere except more heated and I am the one who will not engage in this type of discourse. I would like to say it has been nice, but then I would be lying!
HSVP J
10/31/2021 — 2:51 pm
Mr. Shannon is pretty much spot on with his assessment of HSV, thus the new board is the same as the old board. HSV has a transient board that changes yearly and must rely on advice and information from staff and the advisors behind the curtain. Most property owners understand that a short-board is detrimental to HSVPOA. We have had a short-board for a year, including the five-member board that voted for the trash can/trash truck leasing program.
It appears that you are hung up on the fallacy that property owners have not presented plans addressing the failures of our HSV culture. There have been many plans presented and ignored by our system. I believe the problem is the plans are basically focused on reform and delayed infrastructure repairs, neither of which is totally endorsed by the shakers and movers of this community. There is no big money to be made repairing infrastructure, but HSVPOA is a maintenance organization and nothing else.
The Yes Voter slogan is “the amenities we Want and the infrastructure we Need, that is a problem. We want guaranteed accountability that our decayed infrastructure will be repaired, we don’t want new costly high maintenance amenities two or three years down the road.
Ernest Armentrout
11/01/2021 — 10:09 pm
IMHO, in observing the constant and uncompromising positions on this subject, there will never be enough consensus to sway either side….meantime, the costs and monies that were suppose to be utilized for the “then” infrastructure needs have not been suspended in time. Waiting for everyone to join hands and sing kumbaya will not accomplish what time has not forgot…… needed maintenance and care….and with each passing day, and the estranged opinions, there will never be a suitable agreement, as Rome is burning, what needs managing will suffer the most….and that affects all of us….divided or not. Just an observation
George Tatum
02/11/2022 — 3:38 pm
Just received your AT&T monthly Statement with wrong address. Let me know where to forward your statement.
George Tatum
02/11/2022 — 3:50 pm
Found your correct address and forwarded AT&T statement to your house.
Gene Garner
10/31/2021 — 11:37 am
The Board of Directors spent over $6 million of our money in 2013-2014 on the water plant to increase treated water from 4 million gallons a day to 6 million gallons a day. In 2013 we were consuming a little over 3 million gallons/day, today we’re consuming a little over 3 million gallons/day.
On Aug 1, 2017 a former Chair of the Board of Directors wrote a letter to the Village Voice complaining that “…spending over $6 million of our cash reserves on expanding the water treatment plant had an adverse effect on our ability to maintain Village infrastructure.”
It’s good the Board can see the error of their ways but it seems to me that doing their “due diligence” would have saved us enough money to take care of the infrastructure eight years ago with some left over.
One last thought concerning the upcoming vote. Confidence men/scammers/petty crooks -you choose the adjective, go back to the same people they cheated before and cheat them again. This happens because the cheaters know how gullible the cheated ones are and how they never learn from their past mistakes. —Gene
Diana Podawiltz
10/31/2021 — 8:34 pm
I just want to address your first paragraph. The chair’s only distinctive power is to set meeting times & locations and conduct said meeting. Chair has the right to vote on any manner, not just act as a tiebreaker.
Al Lipson
10/30/2021 — 6:39 pm
As I have stated previously, this vote is nothing more than accountability vs continued mismanagement. Folks, don’t be foolish in casting your ballot recklessly.
George Ken Phillis
10/30/2021 — 7:02 pm
I wish Mr. Shannon’s comments had been presented long ago. Many Villagers have fallen for the same line that was presented six years ago. Our current BOD and GM have continued the rhetoric. Those who have championed the vote no campaign have been ridiculed, attacked and slandered by the yes voters. Their behavior along with the BOD, from the chair and on down have been shameful. It has been made clear the no voters truly understand the need to raise the assessments however it must be attached with true accountability. The “super majority” idea will not insure that accountability. Recently David Robertson posted on ND addressing the fact the BOD has campaigned for the yes vote and placing signs all over the Village. He suggested it was “wrong”. His post was removed before I could respond.
Somehow Villagers need to understand the underhanded things the BOD is doing. Is this the type of BOD they want? It’s no different than what we had when Nally was in charge. A BOD that all voted in lock step with Nally and the group who has basically controlled what goes on in the Village. It’s no secret these days regarding “the group”. Until there is a real change in the way business is conducted here in the Village NOTHING will change. We will continue to experience poor financial decisions/deals made time and time again. As Mr. Shannon pointed out the rhetoric from our current BOD and GM are no different than 6 years ago.
Below is my response to David which I was not able to post on ND because his comments had been removed.
“David Robertson……it is wrong. The BOD used property owners money (our money) in an attempt to sway the election. They placed a fancy insert in the same envelope in which the ballot was mailed. That’s like receiving a ballot mailed out from a municipality in an election for two opposing candidates and the municipality includes an insert telling you which candidate to vote for. The BOD has also placed vote yes signs all over the Village, of which the legality of it is in question. How many thousands of dollars of property owners money has been spent in the efforts by the BOD to sway the vote in this election? It is disgusting. The BOD did the same identical thing a few years ago regarding the vote for the declarations. Nothing has changed, has it? Their effort in that one failed. When a group does underhanded schemes to sway an election then something is wrong…..very wrong.”
Vote NO on this assessment and demand transparency AND accountability before pouring any more money into the hands of a BOD and GM who have failed time and again to meet their fiduciary responsibilities to us property owners.
Robert Busse
10/31/2021 — 1:06 pm
George,
We usually have very similar opinions on many different Village subjects, but in this case I must diagreee. We do need change, but we are already two different Boards away from those that have driven us into this mess and I feel that with time and continued Board personnel changes that we have/will be getting to a better place. But it is not going to happen with any speed. In the mean time HSV needs revenue to do many of the things this Board wants to start, if there is some money available. ( I don’t know of any new projects other than maintenance). Otherwise residents will pay much higher fee to cover shortfalls in revenue.
George Phillis
10/31/2021 — 2:44 pm
Yes, Bob, we usually align pretty much on the same ideas/thoughts. And I agree we are two boards away from what we have now, however there’s really not been a change in the way management is functioning. Continuation of what we’ve done in the past will only head us in the same direction….which, in my opinion, is not good.
The track record for the past 10 years or so speaks volumes. One very important factor in all of this is the loss of trust in the BOD/GM. Not them personally but the methodology of how they have functioned in the past and up to now. Although I must admit there’s a board member or two who have demonstrated an attitude not becoming of a person in that position. It has not helped their cause. Neither did their questionable efforts to sway the election. I attended the last townhall meeting and it was clear the BOD had figured out the problem. They figured out it wasn’t about an increase in the assessment but about no voters wanting accountability. They made a presentation demonstrating where they would spend the money. All well and good except they did not include the accountability part except for the “super majority” board vote that would, as they suggested, prevent any straying on the spending plan. There’s no perfect way to guarantee money won’t go elsewhere than intended however the super majority idea won’t hold water. As you know there’s no easy answers. A no vote win could be disastrous, or maybe not, however continuation of the same governing methods will take HSV down the same road. The record speaks for itself. So there comes a point when tough decisions must be made. It’s similar when in combat your position is being over run….a dire situation……and the only way to save the situation is to call in artillery on your own position….. a very dire act. Maybe the no voters feel that way?
Robert Busse
10/31/2021 — 3:36 pm
George,
We do have some agreement in this issue. I agre with you that there are changes to be made. Very definitely. But my question is what changes and how (anybody have a plan?). I also agree and have argued that there are no guarantees that are a sure thing or iron clad. So I guess our differences are do we need an increase to stumble along trying to get some maintenance done and not get deeper in a financial mess or say no to an increase and have the situation keep heading in the wrong direction and have the POA to cut costs and do things that none of us want just yo keep going until we can get enough people to see the light that HSV needs more revenue to servive! Ant the way thigs are presently, there are many thiings folks want to change and have confidence in before they will say yes to an increase. And most of thos things will take years to incorporate.
Being a Marine Infantry platoon and company commander I know all about the calling in of friendly fire to help get out of a real bad situation. But I don’t think we are there yet. And when you call in fire on yourself you do have some hope of things ending positively. If we do it here and now, I think it will lead to distruction of HSV as we know it now and ultimately wind up having us to incorporate.
Jim Strouse
10/30/2021 — 9:16 pm
Y’all aren’t gonna stop until you have the whole village gone. If it doesn’t pass the board will hit you no voters where it hurts. Get ready
HSVP J
10/31/2021 — 11:22 am
It appears that you have some inside connections to at least one board member maybe more. Could you please elaborate on how the board will hit no voters where it hurts? Is this a physical threat being made? If not, how will the board punish no voters and not affect yes voters? I sense some anger coming from you.
Larry Font
11/03/2021 — 10:44 am
Looks like we have another graduate of the TO school of “How to Win Friends and Influence People”.
Scott McCord
10/30/2021 — 10:14 pm
Why would any person want to become GM of the place. Bunch of unhappy people living here.
It will take either a fool or someone unqualified to take that job.
Lloyd Sherman
10/31/2021 — 8:46 am
We all know that there will continue to be as many opinions as there are property owners and unfortunately, many of those opinions take on a very hostile approach and not communicated in a civil manner.
So anyone taking on the position of GM should be educated on what they are likely facing with the property owners. Social media has made it way too easy for critics to state their opinion. Many times based on rumor.
So, in my opinion, the next GM should be well educated on the culture and want to take it on as a challenge to build-back trust with the property owners. That is not going to happen overnight, but it can be done.
Scott McCord
10/31/2021 — 1:57 pm
Lloyd,
It’s too bad Charles King was not well informed about the HSV culture, and what he was going to experience after taking the job..
If he had been made fully aware (not partially) it could have saved everyone a lot of aggravation,.not to mention the money to move him here, and causing further delay trying to fill the position.
P.S.
Cheryl, There are few people that enjoy HSV more than me. Play golf four to five days a week, fish HSV and area lakes, hunt deer in my back yard, hunt ducks in Stuttgart. It is a paradise for someone with my interest. The only thing that bothers me is all the complaining. HSV is doomed, as we know it today, if more money is not accessed fairly soon. I’m afraid there are too many hard headed people to let that happen. If not, they will complain about their property value and the quality of life that insufficient funding will cause.
HSVP C
10/31/2021 — 2:16 pm
Scott, I am glad to hear you enjoy the Village, like do most of us. It sounds like you want to shut down free speech by calling it “complaining” if people don’t agree with your point of view of how the Village should be governed, etc. We agree with an increase, but the POA should not have free reign with the use of the proposed new assessment dollars. We are asking for a guarantee, which the Board certainly has not given us. I am generally neutral in my articles (that I write) on this website, but sometimes it is hard not to respond to comments when I see people trying to shut down conversations with ad hominem arguments. Hope you have a lovely day. Thank you.
Scott McCord
10/31/2021 — 3:04 pm
Cheryl, I’m sorry if I confused you.
HSVP C
10/31/2021 — 3:56 pm
Thanks, Scott. I know you don’t mean to.
Lloyd Sherman
10/31/2021 — 2:48 pm
Scott,
Mr. King was informed. No one would know that it was going to go as far as it did. Mr. King stated he was leaving because of the culture here, but one should also accept there were other things at play. I don’t know how you prepare someone for the vicious attacks that happen here. Maybe they happen elsewhere, but those that attack, demean, and try to discredit people are some of the most vicious I have ever encountered. You also have to have a pretty thick skin to basically attempt to ignore these types of attacks. Not easy for some to do.
Scott McCord
10/31/2021 — 3:09 pm
Lloyd, He was not told about the attacks that were forthcoming. Had he been he would not have come. You certainly knew of the potential attacks given what we had witnessed the previous couple of years.
HSVP C
10/31/2021 — 3:47 pm
Scott, I am not certain of what attacks you are speaking of. The spouse accused us of attacking him, which we most certainly did not. So not sure what attacks you are speaking of since some attacks were most certainly a figment of someone’s imagination. The spouse also accused us of starting our Facebook Group to attack her husband. Not true. We had the Facebook Group long before he was here and there was not much mentioned about him in that group – actually very, very little until we were accused of attacking him.
I reached out to him when he first came and invited him to Kroc-Coo’s event to honor and feed HSV First Responders. I also covered the drive-through welcome for him the board hosted and even located a band for that event. So, if you are listening to the wrong people, you may be getting some false information. Obviously, there may have been some people who were not polite to him, but perhaps it is not as bad as what was made out, as I do know part of the allegations is false.
Robert Busse
10/31/2021 — 4:50 pm
Scott McCord,
I never thought there would be a day when you and I would agree on something. But I give you credit. For the past several months I must agree with just about everything you have posted. You are 100% right that among many other things, folks will not like it when property values will start going down as maintenance, services, and upkeep are reduced because of lack of funds. And our fees, will continue to rise more rapidly.
Susan Posner
10/31/2021 — 7:21 pm
Property values go down or rise in the wider regional market and it had a slight boom all over last year, but those are slowly coming down and will see increasing inventory as the pandemic eases. HSV prices were 2-5% lower than the average listing for region for same house in past. Inside here is not higher than outside; in for same property type. In fact properties plummeted in here right after the vote to double assessments for 2017 passed as people sold just to leave or shed their second homes. Associations with huge assessments especially when it is not a municipality no longer in vogue and not for average and well golf course still closing all over even in Florida. Not sustainable anymore as retirees seek to downsize and move to less costly regions. Peoples expendable income has not increased but has shrunk in past 2 decades. The marketability for average retirees is cost of living and resources as pensions got cut, not golf, boats, other costly past times. Lot of leisure does and can be be enjoyed short term vacations and is why your amenity fees continue to go up and why rental properties increase in here negatively impacting property values. Working relocation is about job as always and only remote workers had ability to move anywhere. NWA Walmart wouldn’t be paying them to move there if it was all about amenities, they still have to clock in the hours. And remote workers are now dwindling as corporations call them back to office as pandemic eases. Raising assessments will not bring values up. Maintenance and services have not increased are about same as they always have been even when doubling assessments 2017. Your golf fees will always rise that’s cause HSV is too top heavy in that as developers in past put too many in communities just to sell adjoining lots faster. You now live in a time where that is not the case anymore. Pickle ball is far more popular than golf in the nation. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/01/28/pickleball-is-the-fastest-growing-sport-in-america
Scott McCord
11/01/2021 — 11:34 am
When our expenses are greater than our revenue, obviously something has to give. Expenses have been cut significantly. Some say not enough. Every department head says they are short handed to do the work that is expected. Seems there is a disconnect.
Assessments increasing is not popular so people argue about how we should raise our revenue.( it’s a form of complaining and HSV has some of the best)
Susan alludes we may have too much golf capacity, and not enough pickleball. So what do we do, invest more money in golf(e.g. Balboa) , and those investments will continue as long as there is cash that can be allocated to such expenses. Please remember golf is a want not a need. We still want 8.5 golf courses in spite of our ~56% utilization factor. Golf is a sport that has a declining interest.m across the country.(204 courses closed in 2019). Try explaining that fact away.
Cheryl, my reference to attacks was one of predicting the kind of attacks he would receive based on the attacks the previous administration received.
Our golf courses are one of our “big ticket” expenses items. Unfortunately it’s an albatross that is difficult to shed.
Vote yes so we can take of what we have. There could be several ways to raise funds. The proposal in the table will help us address our shortfall. We as owners can watch to make sure the money is spent to address decaying infrastructure. If not we can influence change then. I personally don’t think it will be misappropriated. Future Board members are not likely to circumvent to spending guidelines outlined currently.
Please vote yes.
HSVP C
10/31/2021 — 9:44 am
Scott, this sounds like you are the unhappy one. Most of us realize what a jewel this village is and are not unhappy. Does that mean we have to agree with everything the POA does? Of course not. Most of us are free thinkers.
Scott McCord
10/30/2021 — 10:27 pm
Why would someone as experienced as Mr. Shannon own property in HSV?
HSVP C
10/31/2021 — 9:41 am
Hot Springs Village is a very beautiful place to live. People from all walks of life, all income levels, with many different backgrounds from many places, etc. live here, vacation, and own property here. I could go on and on, but to put it simply, Hot Springs Village is very diverse and has something for everyone and while it is not the big city with big city life, anyone wanting a taste of that, can easily have their whims satisfied with just a short drive.
Sam Taylor
10/31/2021 — 12:12 am
Sorry Villagers, I can only breathe a sigh of relief – I succeeded in getting out of there! It’s a darned if you do and a darned if you don’t on the present vote. Either way is going to hurt probably, but imo the choice is between the lesser of two evils – higher dues that may or may not be misused or the Village continuing to deteriorate possibly even more rapidly and also making it more difficult to recover from. Yes if the board and the boards that followed had acted in a manner that showed fiduciary responsibility after the vote six years, the Village would have been in better shape. I think this board is acting much more responsibly, but who knows what ANY of the future boards will do. For those that ask for guarantees, there are none that I can see. If you know of one then get it out there, I’m sure this board would back it if it could be legally done. A special assessment is not the answer to the multitude of deferred maintenance financial problems that the Village faces as Bob stated above. Reluctantly, I decided to side with the Yes people because I’d rather HOPE that at least some of the deferred maintenance would be done than to vote no and continue to watch the Village continue to fall apart and lose most of what I had invested in it. I’m happy to be out of the mix now, but I still hope that somehow the Village can get its act together to become the place that caused many of us to dream of a fantastic retirement place. Good luck HSV!
Chris von Aspern
10/31/2021 — 11:31 am
Sam … the core of the problem is in what you said, “I’d rather HOPE that at least some of the deferred maintenance would be done than to vote no and continue to watch the Village continue to fall apart and lose most of what I had invested in it.”
I am NOT a behavioral psychologist, but having worked with many businesses, government, and education organizations … I would say there is a deep rooted cultural issue given within the POA organization and how the BOD operates … a developer mentality dominates the POA … and the BOD is subservient to the POA … the POA does what it wants, not what is needed. The POA is poorly organized … and bad decisions and failures have never been reconciled down to the management level and corrected.
Susan Posner
10/31/2021 — 4:38 pm
Not an invested property owner anymore on this matter who moved on. OK!
George Phillis
10/31/2021 — 1:50 pm
It is a shame it has now come down to threats against those who have a differing opinion. The comment ” If it doesn’t pass the board will hit you no voters where it hurts. Get ready.”
Sounds like something directed to only a certain group. So has the BOD become something to be feared if one does not fall into lock step with them? What kind of governing body has it become? In a post on the POG site I suggested “Villagers take a deep breath, trust the BOD as to what they said they will do with the money and vote yes.” The majority of the no voters are in agreement regarding an increase. They just want a way to insure the money is spent where “they” say it will be spent. Of course there’s no way to have a 100% guarantee but the “super majority” idea is eons away from any type of assurance. I was considering a vote yes however, when the governing body came out with their dubious campaign it gave me pause. Inserting a vote yes flyer in with a mailed out ballot and placing vote yes signs all over the Village made me question this whole mess. Why would our governing body resort to possibly illegal activities, or at the very least unethical acts? They also did this with property owners money. Had they sent the flyer out in a separate envelop, placed vote yes signs in accordance with Village rules and used a third party’s money……no problem. In my opinion when an entity resorts to underhanded/questionable methods to sway an election something isn’t right. Susan Posner said it so succinctly, “The problem isn’t lack of funds, but mismanagement of funds. The problem isn’t in the governing documents, but in the governance of. The problem isn’t in what is needed, but in defaulting it for the wanted.” As pointed out by Mr. Shannon (and others) it’s about a trust that has been destroyed. Six years ago the Villagers trusted them. Then the CMP debacle, along with the “Declarations” effort where we saw the same thing as today. A BOD who used property owners money to sway an election. Trust is not won over with questionable acts and words.
Robert Busse
11/01/2021 — 3:39 pm
George, I too think spending owner’s money for BOD preferencce votes is a very bad thing. But to put what the BOD/CEO did in the past Declaration vote into the same classification as what today’s BOD has done is like comparing last winter’s monster snow storm to our typical winter dustings. In addition, there was some owner’s monetary donations to the promotion as well as physical help in putting the signs out. The comparison is $10+ K spent for the past vote along with trying to hide the sneaky actions, to spending maybe $2 K today with owner involvement and openness to the action.
Today’s BOD should have known the signs bought with POA funds was wrong, but to have that misstep completely change a perso’n view and thinking on the dues increase question
is an awlful long reach. However, it is everyone’s right to form their own opinion and decision on this vote and I/we must respect that right!
George Phillis
11/01/2021 — 5:09 pm
Bob, I do agree with your last sentence:-)
However, what the BOD did during the declarations election is no different than what they have done during this election. Back then they used property owners money to sway an election. The amount of money they spent now or back then doesn’t change the fact they used property owners money to sway an election. Because they had donations doesn’t change the fact they used property owners money. Unethical to say the least. During the declaration election they placed a flyer pushing a yes vote in the same envelop with the ballots. This election they placed a flyer pushing a yes vote in the same envelop with the ballots. Dirty politics at the least. If they wanted to send out a flyer pushing a yes vote they should have used 3rd party money and sent it in a separate envelop. Whatever the issue back then or now doesn’t change the fact what they have done….now and back then. The bottom line is trust and it’s not won with such behavior.
Susan Posner
10/31/2021 — 5:38 pm
Yet another threat on site stated toward property owners who voice their opposition to a decision that will permanently impact property owners! Change? I have experienced first hand and witnessed these threats and nastiness on property owners for past 5 years I’ve owned/lived here. Would have moved 2 years ago if not for surgery and pandemic, as some in here including board members pit one group property owners against another. Such as lot vs house, east vs west side, Saline vs Garland county, yes vs no vote. BODs and some property owners are acting like organized crime goons. So property owners money and investment which is the basis of this entire association organization and existence can’t vote or voice according to what they want, without threats and insults; then why does this place exist? Have owned and lived in other places with some associations and have never encountered anything so threatening and insulting as here. I have witnessed since the last doubling assessments in 2017 plenty of repairs, restoration, and regular maintenance; even told by developer after that doubling that POA has plenty funds to maintain. HSV has some of the best infrastructure in this area; all you have to do is explore in here and outside of here. It’s not NWA region of the state with major corporations investing into that area, yet constantly hearing this comparison, coveting NWA demographics sure isn’t going to make this region that region; foolish to even try and certainly shows some portion of the community that wishes it was. Trying to force that square peg in this round hole will cause considerable damage. HSV is a small part of the state, not even a municipality that has clout, but a private little village in a less populated region of state with no major corporations based. No BOD nor some wishful residents or threat and insults will change that. No wonder empty lots and resold homes and not a lot of new roofs built. No amount of amenities can make the community atmosphere of living within peaceful enough for residential growth. That is the reality! Regretfully regardless of current vote outcome, it’s not a desirable community to live in, it’s just a place to vacation and play in that the few make it. Peace and not good luck, cause luck has nothing to do with any of what’s going on.
Ricky w Mangum
10/31/2021 — 11:15 pm
Spot on Sir, thank you!
Mark Oliver
11/01/2021 — 8:11 am
Won’t get fooled again.
Mrs. Katherine Miller
11/01/2021 — 10:56 am
Involving a trustee opens up another can of worms. Here’s some of what I found …
Can trustees sell property without the beneficiary’s approval? The trustee doesn’t need final sign off from beneficiaries to sell trust property.
If you fail to meet your Trustee duties, you can be sued and held personally liable for that mistake. However, you do have the right, as Trustee, to hire a lawyer to advise you and to pay for that legal advice from the Trust funds.
Sometimes, the trustee will flat out take money from the trust. … Commingling of assets.
Susan Posner
11/01/2021 — 4:03 pm
HSV Property Owners Association is not a land trust it is not that kind of non profit tax status. Only Community Land Trust(CLT) in here is The Nature Conservatory which is not HSVPOA land. There are some charitable, educational, civic, social, animal welfare, religious organizations/clubs/leagues, but that involves no land trust. Property owner land owned is private owned not in land trust nor tax exempt and association ie amenity and common properties is association owned is not in a land trust. Association income money has different income tax exemption status as in non profit corporation income tax status. We belong to the Mid Arkansas Water Alliance that is our potable watershed authority but that is not a land trust but a water alliance.
Keith Broach
11/01/2021 — 8:34 pm
This is a difficult article to respond to. It is very long on emotional appeal, but very short on facts. But I’ll give it a try.
I continue to be amazed at the character attacks that are levied against our duly elected Board. You refer to them as an “unethical, corner cutting board” for example. It seems that when the Board makes a decision you don’t agree with they are instantly branded as “untrustworthy.” Personally I find this as an ugly form of gaslighting. You don’t like the recommendation, so you try to convince the public that the Board is “untrustworthy.” The Board and the FRATF have conducted a very public analysis with scores of public meetings and published information. Just because you don’t like the results doesn’t make them untrustworthy.
Regarding the eternal question of “where did the money go.” Are you implying theft? Mismanagement? What is your evidence of such? First, if you really want to know where the money went the financials are published for your review every month. Have you been to a Finance and Planning committee meeting? Maybe you should attend one – or even better, volunteer to serve. Secondly, we have a significantly large and fantastic infrastructure and amenities that will require perpetual funding – it must all be maintained and at some point replaced or renovated. And if history has established a trend, it will never be any cheaper to do this than it is today.
With respect to the current board and the “supermajority” argument – it amounts to nothing. Our bylaws indicate that the current 6 member board could elect, by a majority vote of the board, any owner in good standing to serve out the term of the vacant position. If they chose to do this – which is squarely within the bylaws – I can imagine how you would express outrage that they didn’t pick “your candidate.” So the Board is waiting until the regular election to allow property owners to choose. Your supermajority issue is moot – the Board will consist of 7 – duly elected by property owners – next spring.
Next, a Special Assessment is absolutely the wrong solution for our situation. While a Special Assessment was one of three options presented by the FRATF, it was not the preferred option. Frankly, our needs are not “special” at all. They are broad, recurring, and predictable – the type of needs for which you can plan and budget. Further a Special Assessment is often seen short term remedy for failure in fiscal planning. Here is a link to an article of interest on the topic: https://www.rdanorthwest.com/reserve-study-professionals/knowledge-corner/whats-wrong-with-special-assessments/
And finally, regarding your comment: “After all the self-righteousness, sneering claims of superior knowledge, and the my–way–or–the–highway air of superiority” – I would like to introduce Mr. Pot to Mr. Kettle.
Michael R Shannon
11/02/2021 — 7:18 am
Every direct reference to the column I wrote is either a distortion or a lie. That will be quite obvious when readers compare this inaccurate diatribe to what I wrote, but in the interest of saving them all that scrolling, I will address the attacks directly. Broach’s comments are between the *****s, what I wrote initially is between “” marks.
****I continue to be amazed at the character attacks that are levied against our duly elected Board. You refer to them as an “unethical, corner cutting board” for example. It seems that when the Board makes a decision you don’t agree with they are instantly branded as “untrustworthy.” ****
A lie. As I wrote: “Instead, an unethical, corner-cutting board is dipping into the property owner’s till and using POA money to pay for campaign material to support the ‘Yes’ vote. In a municipal election that would result in an indictment, impeachment, or a recall. In HSV the board yawns and then doubles down by banning vote ‘No’ signs from the same POA property that proudly displays vote ‘Yes’ signs.” In addition, the word “untrustworthy” is not to be found in the column.
****Personally I find this as an ugly form of gaslighting. You don’t like the recommendation, so you try to convince the public that the Board is “untrustworthy.” The Board and the FRATF have conducted a very public analysis with scores of public meetings and published information. Just because you don’t like the results doesn’t make them untrustworthy.****
A distortion. I disagree with the recommendation. The board’s subsequent actions — which I detail — during the referendum vote are what make them unethical. Additionally, if you’re going to use the left’s new favorite term, “gaslighting” at least apply it accurately.
****Regarding the eternal question of “where did the money go.” Are you implying theft? Mismanagement? What is your evidence of such? ****
A distortion. “That language is taken verbatim from the campaign material used to persuade POA members to DOUBLE their assessments only six years ago. The argument is identical to the justification now and our situation today is also almost identical. The question is, where did the money go that was supposed to solve “critical infrastructure repairs” and why are we being asked to pay more to solve a problem that was supposed to be solved six years ago?” Where did the money go is used in connection with the Trust Shortfall and I explained why the shortfall exists.
****Have you been to a Finance and Planning committee meeting?****
Yes.
****With respect to the current board and the “supermajority” argument – it amounts to nothing. Our bylaws indicate that the current 6 member board could elect, by a majority vote of the board, any owner in good standing to serve out the term of the vacant position. If they chose to do this – which is squarely within the bylaws – I can imagine how you would express outrage that they didn’t pick “your candidate.”****
A distortion. I never made that argument. The “supermajority” is the POA BOARD’S argument. Take it up with them.
****Next, a Special Assessment is absolutely the wrong solution for our situation. While a Special Assessment was one of three options presented by the FRATF, it was not the preferred option. Frankly, our needs are not “special” at all. They are broad, recurring, and predictable – the type of needs for which you can plan and budget. Further a Special Assessment is often seen short term remedy for failure in fiscal planning.****
A distortion, plus the POA board’s justification recycled. As I wrote: “The one option that would have fixed the maintenance shortfall and the trust shortfall was a special assessment along with a smaller increase in the regular assessment. The special assessment would have legally bound the board to spend that money only on the infrastructure requirements and the regular assessment increase would have provided money for future maintenance when the special assessment ended.”
****“After all the self-righteousness, sneering claims of superior knowledge, and the my–way–or–the–highway air of superiority” – I would like to introduce Mr. Pot to Mr. Kettle.****
And I would like to introduce you to Evelyn Wood. I think she could help your reading comprehension.
Keith Broach
11/02/2021 — 9:41 am
More of the same… insults and deflection from a skilled writer. High marks for style, very light on content. I stand by my prior response. Have a good day!
Michael R Shannon
11/02/2021 — 11:30 am
You continue to lie. I answered your reply point-by-point. The only person deflecting is you.
Tom Blakeman
11/02/2021 — 8:33 am
Keith Broach, I won’t comment on the fallacies in your arguments. Not worth the trouble. I am calling you out though, for the link to the bogus article about special assessments. The article presumes that the entity doing such has been doing same (special assessments) on a regular basis rather than properly funding reserve accounts over time. While such a scenario would be bad practice it does not represent what has been going on here at all.
First off, there has never been a special assessment here. It is not like anyone asking for an ongoing string of them. If there is a demonstrated and identified need to replace 50 year old infrastructure then a one time capital expense is certainly warranted and appropriate and should be paid for and completed with specifically earmarked monies. Once and done. Example: Replace X miles of 50 year old water main for Y dollars and be done in 2 years providing another 30-50 years of trouble free service for the entire X miles. What is not acceptable is an ongoing string of assessments doubling every few years and the funds then frittered away patching random problems (pretty soon you are putting new patches over old patches) or diverted to future “wants” at the whim of some future group of so-called leaders.
The article pegs the main problem on past lack of funding of depreciation monies into reserve accounts thereby pushing past costs onto future property owners. That is exactly what has happened here. HSVPOA should have been socking away tens of millions of depreciation linked dollars into reserve accounts. Had they been doing this for 50 years (instead of building more and more golf courses) then we would already have the $50MM (red blob) already in the bank. THEY DID NOT. Instead, our leadership thru their hand picked and selected advisors want to have the shortfall made up going forward by ratcheting up assessments, charging new buyers a premium fee and hiking already excessive amenity fees – FOREVER. There is nothing different between this approach and the ongoing string of special assessments condemned by your example article. It’s just semantics.
The bottom line is HSV is well past the point of continued patching, promises and diversions. The POA needs to specifically identify, plan out and cost/bid out (yes, we all know the work will be done with outside contractors) the real capital projects, to replace or modernize or expand water lines, roads, culverts, golf courses, roofs, buildings or whatever. This has not been done. Then and only then should they come to the property owners with a request for funds – in the form of a special assessment.
Anything less is simply more bureaucratic empire building.
Robert Busse
11/02/2021 — 11:46 am
Keith Broach, your post is spot-on and very well-thought-out!!! As long as everything is going their way, things are great . But let the Directors do something factions don’t like, and the Directors immediately become incompetent, crooks, secretive, self-serving, not trustworthy, and just like all the past leaders that most condemn. They demand change, which is needed, but we can not increase needed revenue until the slow-moving change is approved by them.
Your analysis is very realistic and appropriate for today’s atmosphere. Thank you
Linda Anderson
11/01/2021 — 10:48 pm
Thank You Mr. Shannon for the real understanding of what is going on. Everything you mentioned is true and more than you know. If this increase is passed according to Option 1, MILLIONS $$$ will be placed in the POA general fund without legal and binding accountability. A 3 -Year Special Assessment for at least 50% of increased funds would have represented a fair arrangement understanding the critical need to start infrastructure replacement and repair. The Board knew that the Declarations does allow Special Assessments and had a chance to redeem good faith and trust by implementing what property owners wanted but instead chose to take a hard line to bring in as much money as possible regardless of the consequences. With a new ( hopefully ) experienced GM about to be chosen, he may have other ideas as to how to be financially responsible.
A sad reminder that this is a continuing Board TRUST SHORTFALL.
Robert Busse
11/02/2021 — 12:03 pm
Ms. Anderson, where in the world did you get the idea that our Declarations do not allow Special Assessments?? Special Assessments must be very specific. You must specify a dollar amounts, specific projects, and for specific times. What the BOD has done is not tie up money on specific items and allowed a more general categorizing for the spending, But there is still a focus on maintenance and repair, for which we all know is badly needed.
Kirk Denger
11/20/2021 — 9:45 am
Mr. Busse, where in the world did you get the idea Anderson said that the declarations do not allow for a special assessment??
Article 10 section 4.
HSVP C
01/16/2022 — 11:39 am
The policy of this website is to not publish comments if they are not made using your first and last name. Thanks for understanding. – Cheryl Dowden