At the August 18, 2021 Board meeting, recommendations from the Future Revenue Analysis Task Force were again discussed by the Hot Springs Village Board of Directors.
Future Assessments Proposed by Board
Director Omohundro said, “the Board at this time has decided we are going to go towards the number one option they had – very similar to it, but we’re going to be a little more aggressive.” The Board has decided on the following assessments:
- 2022 improved properties – $90
- 2022 unimproved properties -$42
- 2023 improved properties – $100
- 2023 unimproved properties – $44
- 2024 improved properties – $110
- 2024 unimproved properties – $46
- 2025 improved properties – $120
- 2025 unimproved properties – $48
- 2026 improved properties – $125
- 2026 unimproved properties – $49
Village has Changed
Omohundro stated, “I guess we can discuss why and how we got to this point. I think most people know that the Village has actually changed since we started this deal with the FRATF Committee. We didn’t have a lot of money in here for employees and for retention and so forth. It was a three percent increase, I think. I think we all obviously are figuring out that this is – we’re going to have to go a little more aggressive or we’re going to be in trouble as a community.”
Continuing, Omohundro said, “I for one will say the last thing I think this Board and most people in this Village wants to do is raise dues to the extent that people have to leave the community. I honestly believe if this causes that, they are probably going to have to leave anyway because everything else is going up, too. It is a tough situation.”
“I said something the other day. My house insurance went up $500 this year. Our insurance on our buildings go up. We have to maintain what we have here. That’s just my feelings about it.”
Director Gary Belair said, “to further expand on what Tucker said, we have had two committees, this year, look at what it takes to run the Village. And by running the Village I am talking about keeping the roads and making sure our water is clean and that we can dispose of our wastewater.”
Belair stated, “both of those committees saw needs for constant repair and evaluated the costs and the things that we’ve been postponing for a long time. So, based on all their hard work, I can see no option but to increase our assessments and I fully agree with the way Tucker described it.”
Board Received Tremendous Support for Higher Increase Than FRATF’s Recommendations
Omohundro explained, “one other thing I would like to point out, because we do get a lot of emails and we have actually got a tremendous amount of emails and I want to go as far as to say 99% have been positive, which is fabulous, but we have had some others and I want to point out one thing that’s been going on in this community and it’s going to continue, but I am going to say it anyway, just because that is how I am. We have eliminated since 2019, we have eliminated a Chief Operating Officer, a Food and Beverage Director, Agronomy Director, Real Estate Acquisitions Director, Real Estate Sales Director, Chief Member Experience Officer, and Recreation Director. That alone is $964,000, annually. We have cut the fat for those that keep saying, ‘we need to cut the fat.’ We’ve cut it. We cannot operate the Village without some people. I am sorry. We have to have people to run this community. And unfortunately, yes, we are a nonprofit organization, but we’re not a church. We don’t have people working for fifty cents on the dollar because it is a church. We can’t hire people because we’re a nonprofit organization at fifty cents on the dollar. They don’t care that we are nonprofit. We are a recreational retirement community. They have to make a living. Everybody has to make a living. It is just a way of life. So, for those people out there that keep saying, ‘cut the fat,’ we’ve cut it. We’ve cut a lot of things. So get off of that wagon, cause it doesn’t work.”
:: Clapping in the audience::
Avila Said Higher Assessments are Reality of What is Needed
Director Pam Avila added, “I have a comment. I think it is always hard when we’re talking about reaching into somebody’s pocket or pocketbook. It’s always personal and we always kind of grab hold and say, ‘no, get your hand out of there.’ The reality is that this is about your home, your home, your home… and it is just not about reaching into your pocketbook. It is really about maintaining all of those things that we moved here for in the first place. So while I don’t want to see the assessments go up, I know they have to and it is just the reality that we’re faced with, if we want to keep this Village what we all came here for in the first place.”
Special Board Meeting in a Week (They did not specify exact details)
Omohundro added, “I am sorry. I forgot to say. We have a scheduled meeting, I think in a week.” The Board will vote on this issue in a week.
Assessment Increase is in Hands of Property Owners
Chair Corry said, “we are giving everyone a week to make sure everything is good and that is the only thing that will be done at that special meeting.”
Corry continued, “we did not want to have anyone think that we were doing anything underneath the table. This is all very transparent. You can see it. That’s what we are doing. “
Corry said, “I would just like to say that this is the biggest time in HSV history, I think, that Property Owners need to understand. This is in your hands. We are not – we are not, as a Board, wanting to raise dues. That is not what we want to do, to raise assessments. But this is a time, this is all in the hands of Property Owners. It is not the Board. It is Property Owners and how you vote. So you do want to talk to your friends and family, whoever lives here, to make sure that when this vote is set and it comes up, you get what you want. Because it is not the Board. We’ll vote to present it to you. That is it.”
Wages and Salaries
Director McLeod said, “One of the things that I am not sure everybody knows, but we are way behind in hiring people. We can’t get people. We can’t keep the people. Something that you all need to know is that the minimum wage keeps going up. Every time minimum wage goes up a dollar, it costs us over a million dollars a year, right here in the Village. Every time. And so if that continues to go up, we’re trying to plan for that. If we don’t, we’re going to be back in this situation again four years from now. So we need to be aggressive with what we are doing and take care of the problem today and take care of the problem in the future.”
Corry said FRATF recommended Option three and they are not necessarily taking that option.
Original Approach was for More Modest Increase
Omohundro said, “they did. They went with the same approach that I think I started when we started this program was, we didn’t feel like we could get what we needed and we really are still not getting what we need. But, things have changed. I have been in discussions with them, myself. The retention problem, that’s what I said. We started in January or whatever. Here we are and it’s changed. The dynamics have changed in this six-month period. I spoke with Larry (Siener), which is one of the analysis guys, yesterday. They already see it has changed since their recommendations. Our situation has changed. We didn’t even have anything calculated for raises and hiring people and it slammed us in the last few months. You can’t hire anybody at Mcdonald’s. You can’t hire anybody anywhere right now. It is just a fact of life and we have to deal with it or go home. So, they are one hundred percent behind this. They put the programs together and they’re one hundred percent behind what we have came up with, because I [have] spoken to them myself. And I am sure Pam has, too.”
Good News/Bad News
Avila explained, “I think part of the challenge is recognizing that, it is a good news/bad news thing. The good news is, the Village is 50 years old. The bad news is, the Village is 50 years old. And just like a 50-year-old house, it needs major repairs and it needs major things that it didn’t need 20 years ago or 30 years ago. But it needs it now. We’ve been putting off some of those things that have been creeping up that we should have been doing and now they are becoming major repairs instead of minor repairs, so we need to step up. The reality is, that we need to step up.”
Ultimate Need to Reach $125
Director Chris Jones said, “I think you guys have all spoken eloquently about what we’re talking about. I was going to mention the 50 years. I am the young guy on the Board. I am the young guy in the Village. I would like to see the Village last another 50 years or more. The reality is, the way we are going right now, it probably can’t. It likely can’t. This is helping us not only solve the problem for five years. It is helping us solve the problem for many more years than that. And ultimately, that is kind of the nature of how the world goes. Things grow, things become more expensive. We need to adapt. We need to make sure that we’re operating the best we can, with what we have, but also, ensuring that we can continue to maintain for years to come. That red blob, as it were, it’s only going to grow. We can predict all we want, but it’s going to continue to grow and we need to not only just meet the top of that line. We need to extend past it. So all of that mentality went into this and we understand the need for ultimately, in 2026, to get to $125. We didn’t want to just recommend changing it overnight and cutting people off at the ankles. We wanted to gradually grow into that because we know that it is a problem when you just reach into people’s pocketbooks and we didn’t want to make it feel like we are robbers in any way. But we want you to understand that this is the reality of where we are. We put tons and tons of time – the FRATF has done a tremendous effort to look at every single detail that we have from our operations, maintenance, potential outcomes, potential revenue sources, whatever we could do. I can’t compliment them enough on the amount that they have done. But overall, that is just the nature of where we are. So, I think, advocating for a more aggressive approach is the right mentality. We don’t want to kick the can down the road. We want to put it out there right now. This is the reality today. This is where we need to be. This is where we want to be and we as a collective community need to protect what we have and continue to grow for another 50 years or another 75 years or 100 years, however, many years this community will last. And it only lasts as long as we allow it to. I think, from my own perspective, I think this is a great time for us. I think we as a community can come together and celebrate that we are protecting what we have and we’re protecting our future growth. And I think that is great.”
We Don’t Want to Lose More Unimproved Lot Owners
Omohundro said, “I have one other thing to say. The nonresident Property Owners, I would love to have them pay $70, $80 a month and subsidize my luxuries here in the Village while they live in Chicago and don’t use the place. But, honestly, we do not dictate that, no more than this vote. We can, I know some people say, ‘well, we need to charge them $60.’ We’re not going to charge them $60. They’re not going to vote for it. It’s bar none. They’re not going to do it. So, ultimately, one of these days, I’ve said it a few times, it won’t be in my lifetime, but one of these days the residents of this Village, whoever they are, are going to have to pay for this Village, whether they like it or not. It’s ultimately going to get there. We went from 25,000 nonresident Property Owners, paying dues. Correct me if I am wrong, Stephanie. Now we’ve got 13,000. That number is not going up, probably. It may. But it continues to go down. We ultimately have to take care of this community ourself and we’ve got to get out of the attitude of trying to get somebody in Chicago to pay for our lives, here in the Village. We are the ones enjoying this place. We have to pay our part and I hate it, but that’s the way it is. We’re lucky that we have them. They are already saving me $50 a month. I like them. I don’t want to run them off. I don’t want to run them off and we will run them off. We’re going to run them off with this. But hopefully, not many.”
Avila said she wasn’t sure people understood the dynamic of that. “There are more nonresident Property Owners voting than there are resident Property Owners voting. So if they don’t like what is being proposed, they can vote it down and we have to live with it. So while, as Tucker said, there are people here in the Village who have said, ‘why don’t we go back to a one-tier – why don’t they pay their share?’ It’s really more of a sort of balancing game and a strategic game and we have to understand that they are a powerful voting block and they could literally destroy the Village if they chose to do that.”
Belair stated, “if they destroy the Village. Then they’ll lose everything they have paid to date. So people should not get that.”
Omohundro said, “some of them don’t care.”
“A lot of them don’t care,” said Avila.
Omohundro said, “that’s where we lost – 11,000 so far don’t care. They let them go somewhere else. We don’t need another 11,000 to not care. Because guess who is going to have to pay the bill? Us.”
Avila said, “it is a hard, cruel world out there.”
Omohundro, “yeah.”
By Cheryl Dowden, August 19, 2021
* * *
Thank you for reading. If you like, please comment below. We love to hear your opinion, but comments must be made using your first and last real name, or they will not be accepted. If you would like to submit an article for publication, please contact us through this website. Be sure to bookmark this website. Click here to visit the Hot Springs Village People Facebook Group.
Jama Lopez
08/19/2021 — 1:03 pm
Interesting.
I believe we all understand the need for resources for infrastructure. However, when we see new “opportunities” coming at us and no ROI or alternative solutions offered, and that “opportunity” goes from saving us half a million to costing us half a million once all the numbers are in, our confidence is pretty much blown.
We need these assessment increases protected and monitored. We need to be better stewards, so that a year or two or three down the road, we don’t hear “we made a slight miscalculation, we need more money”.
If my assessments are $50 or $150 a month, I expect the BOD and POA management to properly watch how that money is spent.
One last comment: Why have we not considered bonds to finance maintaining and upgrading our infrastructure?
Melinda Alvord
08/19/2021 — 3:37 pm
I completely agree that careful monitoring and control of spending is imperative.
Hopefully Bonds will be part of their strategy. But that can not solve our staffing/wage issues which are growing by the day. We are not competitive, period! And I expect you saw that during your tenure. I learned just this morning that two more employees have been recruited away to better paying jobs.
Director McLeod’s quote is prescient. We can’t compete to hire and keep people when our wage scale is below market with the likes of Walmart, Oaklawn, McDonald’s etc. A $2.00/hr increase will cost us conservatively $2.2M which is 102% of what we’ll receive from the proposed 2022 $20.00/month increase on approx. 9,000 improved properties. POOF, it’s gone.
Lynda Narug
08/19/2021 — 2:53 pm
The more they have, the more they can find ways to spend it. As 2 seniors here over 21 years, and not using any amenities now, its an insult we’re supposed to cut back on our necessities to increase the salaries of those that should have done a better job of budgeting and hiring, At our ages of over 80 we helped build HSV, now to suggest we move if we don’t like it, is unsavory and disgusting.
Melvin west
08/19/2021 — 3:07 pm
I have one reply. Why oh why did we put the pool the paddle ball courts the rework of our rules and the gates ahead of “needed repairs? Who makes the decisions for these projects? The directors or the POE staff?
David Perry
08/19/2021 — 4:04 pm
That would be the great John Paul that makes those decisions. The longer you keep him in charge the more he will make you scratch your head.
Melinda Alvord
08/19/2021 — 4:41 pm
How can you say that John Paul made the decisions about pools and pickleball and gates and CMPs, etc. He wasn’t even remotely involved in any of that stuff. (In fact I suspect he was happily enjoying his retirement never imagining that he would be asked to serve as interim GM, twice!) Look back to the BODs and CEO during the period 2015/16 to the end of 2019 for the answers to those questions.
David Perry
08/19/2021 — 8:53 pm
He has never not been involved. He has always been lurking in the shadows. He is the one making the calls now and screwing the village up more from where he left off. I can assure you they didn’t seek him out to be the interim. He was foaming at the mouth to get a look at what the village had going on financially.
Robert Busse
08/20/2021 — 11:39 am
I would like to reply to both David Perry and the others that think that John Paul is the cause of our irresponsible spending and financial problems. That is the most ridiculous, unkind, and untruthful thing that can be said about him. John has given many years of devoted service to our Village and should be thanked rather than slandered. Sure, he did some things some golfers didn’t like, and he did some things that the results were not so good. But to blame our many problems and lack of action on him is incorrect.
JP has been a non-participant in POA operations for several years, except for 2 short stop-gap volunteer terms when we were without a GM/CEO. During those periods, it would be impossible for anyone to take the actions, or lack of, to get HSV in its present state.
The down hill slide started way back with the leadership and questionable actions/activities of David Twiggs and his cultivating of Directors to follow his ideas and direction. It continued and much more egregious and damaging with Leslie Nalley and her puppets on numerous Boards that caved in to her every wish. But, some of the blame has to fall on we the owners for being so apathetic and uncaring to allow our elected leaders and their CEO to run roughshod over the membership as it was occurring. And don’t forget folks, it was/is the BOD and/or GM/CEO that can spend and conduct operations in our Village. JP was just a part of the POA during some of that digressing period, and just a property owner like the rest of us for the rest.
I really think John Paul is due a public apology from David Perry
Lynda Narug
08/20/2021 — 5:01 pm
John Paul is a member of Friends of HSV and a member of q large group that su4d those of us when we called it a Tyranny of the Majority. There will always be more land owners than home owns, therefore, home owners will always be paying higher assessments.
David Perry
08/20/2021 — 10:32 pm
He is a crook. The guy only wants to be in the “GM” so he can use the village to help diamanté he has no interest in the PoA. He is doing nothing but putting a smoke screen. He screwed the village up before and guess what? We are going to let him do it again. I can’t stand the guy. I promise you he will leave this place in worse shape then when he found it. The kicker is he screwed you on the Desoto renovation and now you are gong to let him do it again on the balboa Reno. Come on Robert wake up
Everett Holland
08/19/2021 — 3:42 pm
Been here only a short time but what astounds me is that I have yet to hear anything about improving the effectiveness and efficiency of those processes currently in place to carry out the day-to-day operations. Has no one ever heard of Process Improvement Teams, Lean Initiatives, etc to reduce costs? It seems the emphasis is always more money.
Lloyd Sherman
08/19/2021 — 6:47 pm
Based on my seven years here and being a part of board at one time, I can assure you that either the term of process improvement or Lean Initiatives are foreign to most employees and board members. This absolutely needs to be done before we raise assessments over 80% in the next five years.
Kim Victorine
08/21/2021 — 2:24 pm
Our POA and BOD is no different than most USA corporations. Very few in leadership positions and nearly zero direct employees have even a basic understanding of continual process improvement of lean “enterprise”. That being said, I do not agree that improvement initiatives need to take place before revenue increases take hold, but a plan for both should be in place before things develop their own momentum.
Trying to look forward to define where expenditures will need to take place over the next 5 years is impossible. No management team would be able to function without some level of autonomy. It is easy to see the labor will be a massive issue both for competitive wages and availability. Here is where I see the benefit of CI and lean would help HSV. Reducing process waste and improving labor related processes for ease and efficiency.
Lloyd Sherman
08/19/2021 — 3:43 pm
The requirement for an assessment increase is in my estimation if a far-gone conclusion. The only question all along has been, how much?; not whether we actually need one. That being said, the property owners still deserve to know the absolutes of contentions being made by the board. So let’s address a few of them:
COMPENSATION – The board has stated we have cut the fat. Really? What is that statement based on? If our compensation across the board is not adequate to support our operations, then the simple answer is to share with the property owners the data that supports those statements. That alone is a show of good-faith that statements are based on actuality. Have all job descriptions been reviewed and if so, when and how? Where are the Arkansas based salary surveys that back up the assignment of salary grades to the positions? What about benefits? Typically a corporations benefits will run in the 30-33% range. Ours is much higher. Is that being calculated into what we are paying for our positions? So we may well have cut all the fat we can, but simply saying it does not make it so.
NON-PROFIT – Our POA is only designated as a non-profit for tax purposes and I’m not aware of any widespread feeling that we should be paying at reduced levels. What we do have are questions about what we are paying. On the average, Arkansas compensation is 23% lower than nationwide compensation. What we do keep hearing is that many of the rank-and-file positions are high turnover and not appropriate to hire and retain personnel (BTW – this is not a phenomena to the POA).
REVENUE AND OPERATIONS – In all of the discussions about the size of an assessment increase, there has been way too little attention paid to avenues for increasing revenues through other than assessment or fee increases. That is how government works! Additionally, although called for time and time again, there has been no mention of control audits (deep dives if you will) into all of our operations and amenities. These types of programs need to be done independently without involvement of staff except to provide the information requested.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES – While it is my opinion that the impact of unintended consequences should be factored in this assessment increase, not addressing them is dangerous. Obviously if we continue down a path of fewer lots paying assessments, any attempt to improve the assessment revenue will most likely result in the unintended consequence of lowering our overall assessments. For example: The 2021 budget projected assessment revenue of $18,955,000 with a Bad Debt projection of $3,950,400. That would leave us with $15,004,600 in assessment revenue. If you are managing your financials properly, you would know that compensation projections of $18,602,458 can’t even be covered by what is being actually collected. Now here is a larger issue. BAD DEBT is actually running at $5,000,000 this year. So any comment that our lot issue is improving is totally inaccurate.
Enough of trying to address some of the issues surround the whole assessment increase discussion, here are some suggestions for the Board to consider as they decide what they will put before the property owners for a vote:
1. Ensure that data supporting the statement that we have cut the fat is provided to the property owners.
2. Ensure all job descriptions have been reviewed and benchmarked according to compensation requirements for Arkansas.
3. Assure the property owners that independent control audits will be performed during 2022 to ensure that all operations and amenities are operating at peak efficiency.
4. Set aside the cost of these control audits in a reserve fund and budget them for 2022.
5. Ensure all funds received as part of an assessment increase are relegated to a reserve account every month and dedicated only to infrastructure.
As an aside, I would also be curious as to why our cash accounts still have over $10 million in them. Once the PPP was forgiven, those funds should have gone to reserve accounts and that does not appear to be the case, even though it was voted on and approved by the board.
This same information is also going directly to the entire Board.
Robert Busse
08/20/2021 — 12:01 pm
I believe Lloyd Sherman has nothing but good in his heart for HSV. Most everything he has been saying for a while is certainly valid and needed. But, as I see it, he is wanting the BOD to do/complete these things before they do anything. What he wants is what needs to happen after we get a permanent GM and that GM and the Board start cleaning up, rectifying policy and procedures, and getting things headed in the right direction. Many of the things he has highlighted for a while are things that can not be done overnight or in a week of two. They will take a lot of time. We can’t wait for all these things to be accomplished before we have a dues increase. There are other areas that must move forward also.
So, to Lloyd, keep studying and looking at the operations and continue to evaluate and recommend. But also let’s remember that time marches on. We didn’t get this way in a week or two.
Lloyd Sherman
08/20/2021 — 11:52 pm
Thank you for the comments Bob. I have said all along that I would support a reasonable increase in fees, but not without knowing changes were going to be made in the way we conduct our affairs. As it turns out, we have not heard of any REAL or SUBSTANTIAL changes that will be made, or plan to be made. The current plan is to ask for an 80% increase in assessments over the next few years, with zero commitment from the Board to address any of the issues which have been outlined several times by several property owners.
I understand that many are not pleased with my decision to leave the board. I really do, but before I was tarred and feathered, it would have been nice if those who didn’t agree or understand, would have reached out to me to find out why I had to leave the board.
That being said, Linda and I love the Village and I assure you the information I share, or the opinions and suggestions I give are not to harm the Village, but are intended to improve the financial stability of our corporation, as well as secure of viability into the future.
Bob is right in that this can’t be done overnight, but it can certainly be started by committing to the property owners that changes in the way business has been conducted will be addressed. Not by words, but by action.
My last email to the board outlining questions I and others have about the data to back up statements being made was met with what we have experienced for years in the Village. Basically to go pound sand and we don’t want to hear from you. Given the issues that resulted in my leaving the board, combined with the totally inappropriate response I received leaves me wondering how I should proceed.
The bottom line for me, is that unless changes are made or committed to being made (in writing), I find myself in a position where I will not be able to support their assessment increase plan without assurances, even knowing we need some type of increase. They say they want input, but it appears what they want is only input that supports their approach.
Marc S Bayer
08/22/2021 — 4:34 pm
Telling you to pound sand seems quite the reasonable response. They need to go forward and not cater to the whims of some guy who couldn’t stand the heat, so he quit thee Board and now has the audacity to attempt to propel himself into being GM. What a disaster that is to even think about.
David Perry
08/22/2021 — 9:01 pm
Get em Marc. I thought I was the only one that thought this.
Linda Anderson
08/19/2021 — 6:57 pm
Do we really know what the final assessment will be? The choice was Option 1, however, this option represented more than what was discussed. So I think the Board needs to clarify this. Also, Why is this to be a vote behind closed doors? Then there was a discussion concerning: Cutting The Fat ” with figures adding up to $964,000. Add another 100,000 due to Stephanie Heffer leaving and that adds up to over a 1 Mil. Where did that money go? Finally, The Task Force assumptions for the assessment increase were based on infrastructure which meant roads, culverts, and buildings. Since this was in their estimation “critical” for the future of our Village, then why not make it a special assessment which would ensure this is properly spent. It would then be processed into project-orientated accounting. If the property owners have to step up to the plate for more money, then the Board needs to take a reasonable and responsible leadership position and make this a Special Assessment to show good faith and Trust.
Melinda Alvord
08/19/2021 — 10:56 pm
Linda, special assessments must be task specific. You can’t lump millions of dollars on multiple scopes of work into one special assessment. Not saying it can’t be done. Just saying it will require a number of separate special assessments, each one requiring its own vote. Check the Declarations.
Kirk Denger
08/19/2021 — 11:20 pm
If any one believes Pam, Tucker, Joanie, Belair, McCloud and Chris as a quorum, have not been meeting unethically, and illegally
without officially calling the meeting with an agenda and minutes being taken, then vote for their sales pitch. None of this has been previously discussed at any public meetings or executive meeting agendas, yet they are all singing the same chorus with the preacher. The vote is set, the paperwork to mail to Property Owners is already printed for the 30 day notice. The paperwork is also already printed to revote after the first vote fails to be delivered to the Property Owners within 90 days to waste another $45,000 of POA funds for a second try at the lottery. It’s a crap shoot.
Robert Busse
08/20/2021 — 12:14 pm
Awfully BOLD accusations, Kirk. Right now, I think you are being very untruthful, and sour grapes for not being able to stay on the BOD. But, if you are truthful and have memos and documents,
etc., why don’t you show them. Make copies and display them. There are a number of ways you can present your opinion and facts. Folks will find your statements much more truthful if you have cold hard facts in black and white. Right now, what you say is very hard to believe.
Jama Lopez
08/20/2021 — 9:52 pm
I just assumed Kirk was being facetious or maybe sarcastic.
Kirk Denger
08/22/2021 — 1:46 pm
Busse, Group texts and group emails where a Board quorum is present are uncalled secret special meetings without agendas or minutes taken, which is unethical and illegal. I am sour grapes about how the CMP and what is left of it restricts the use of my property without a Property Owner vote, not about the results of a Property Owner vote. I put the truth out so that Villagers can hear if it resonates. Choose what you will.
Walter Chance
08/20/2021 — 8:05 am
An increase where there has been no accountability in the past? . How about a separate road assessment or infrastructure assessment with an end date. Assessment fees in general disappear into the bureaucracy that is the POA. No cutting expenses, just increase taxes (assessment is nothing more than a tax) What was the point of FRAFT if you were not going to take there recommendation of option 3. Or any of there options. This board has been given plenty of input. I would be in favor if I knew there would be transparency and accountability. I urge a vote of NO to homeowners. Unless the BODs goes back to the FRAFT recommendation, which I was going to vote yes. This is a huge increase. Why don’t we start by cutting expenses. How about canceling the new garbage truck contract?
Michael Lane
08/20/2021 — 10:21 am
Looks like the BOD cannot get the unimproved property owners to pay 50% of full assessment and as time goes on and more assessments are made they will continue to pay less and less than half, but those same owners still retain a full vote?
But the good news is the BOD is going to waive the CPI for the years 2022 – 2026, or are they?
Michael Lane
08/20/2021 — 3:04 pm
Now I see that Tucker and the board really do like the unimproved lot owners. After running the internet calculator it shows an increase of:
2022 improved lot owners 30% increase and unimproved lot owners 5% increase.
2023 improved lot owners 11% Increase and unimproved lot owners 4.7% increase.
2024 improved lot owners 10% Increase and unimproved lot owners 4.5% increase.
2025 improved lot owners 9% increase and unimproved lot owners 4.3% Increase.
2026 improved lot owners 4% increase and unimproved lot owners 2% Increase.
If improved lot owners are now paying $69.26 monthly when that increases to $125.00 monthly that is an 80% increase.
If unimproved lot owners are now paying $39.97 monthly when that increases to $49 monthly that is an 22% Increase.
Now I have hardly no education at all and maybe I’m one of those who can’t afford to live here in the village, but before I have to pull up stakes and leave would someone check these numbers?
Lynda Narug
08/20/2021 — 6:45 pm
I’m no mathematician, but with my simple minded figuring is that an 81% increase? After living here over 21 years, that’s disgusting the BOD (or John Paul) is sticking it to us old timers. The only ones benefiting is the real estate market with For Sale signs going up all over. A decision to raise the assessments to such a level should have waited until we have a permanent GM, not just a Temp..
Tom Blakeman
08/20/2021 — 7:15 pm
No offense intended Lynda but the problem has little to do with the GM. It is the basic system of governance where the problem lies.
Lynda Narug
08/20/2021 — 8:20 pm
Are you aware the GM was 1 of 28 plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed on Garner and Narug, defendants, who opposed the Two-Tier? Actually the 2-tier is responsible for this debacle and clearly JP was part of the lawsuit in favor of the 2-tier.
Robert Busse
08/21/2021 — 9:31 am
It is time to get off the two-tier horse. I think most owners are aware that you and Gene filed a lawsuit opposing 2 tiers. The ultimate vote, by all owners, was affirmative for the action. The court said it was legal also. So, many years after the fact, you still carry hatred for anyone involved in promoting that 2 tier action. Please let it go! A lot of water has run under the bridge and there is nothing you can do to change what happened a long time ago.
And JP was only one person who supported the 2 tier, and “Friends” was just a small percent of the total Yes vote. You and David Perry are carrying a vindictive attitude for things that you two didn’t like or was not what you wanted. That is your right, but please spare the rest of us from your obvious hatred and revenge seeking. The dislike of JP has absolutely no bearing or application to the question at hand.
Mrs. Katherine Miller
08/20/2021 — 6:55 pm
There’s nothing the matter with your numbers. The assessments do not get paid on so many unimproved lots that the resulting shortage puts the village at risk, especially during economically challenging times. The more money the village relies on from the unimproved lot owners, the greater the risk of shortages.
Lloyd Sherman
08/21/2021 — 12:06 am
The two-tier resulted in less revenues being collected on UNIMPROVED lots. In fact, factoring in BAD DEBT, we have gone backwards in net assessments received. One has to wonder how a 22% increase for those who don’t frequently, or even at all, use or come to their properties are going to take to that kind of an increase. History would seem to indicate, not very well, and could very well result in our march to the cliff to be lined with what will be previous lot owners.
Mark kent
08/21/2021 — 12:23 pm
I’m voting NO to the huge increase in our POA dues. The POA and Board does not have my trust yet. I could vote for a couple years of larger increases, but not doubling my dues in five years! I am very concerned that the Staff and Board will go on a huge spending spree for new “pet” capital projects. I am willing to give a little increase to prove themselves. I especially want to see how the new General Manger operates and observe his/her priorities.
I could possibly vote for the entire increase if the lion’s share would go into a “maintenance” account that could only be changed by a vote of the members. And no tricks, by the way, the existing money spent on maintenance would be frozen and also go into this account. Also, there should be strict guidelines on what is considered “maintenance.”
If you want to know why the Board and staff do not have my trust read below.
Please don’t take this as a Board/Staff bashing. This board and staff is better than the Nalley days. They have cut top paying leadership jobs and kept new capital outlays at a lower level. But they still have done things that have reduced my trust.
1. Brand new pickle ball courts having to be redone. Still not managing contracts and Capital expenditures to insure good results. Just like the old days with the electronic gate debacle.
2. Roads and reflectors torn up by snow removal equipment. Broken reflectors reinstalled on roads, etc. (Sort of like old days when they let the pipes freeze at DeSoto. Not paying attention to the maintenance details)
3. Ignoring maintaining the cracks in our road. I still remember someone saying “No one knows where that machine is located.” What? So glad a “someone” found it and the staff restarted the program.
4. Terrible decision “giving” several POA restaurants to Greg Jones. He basically has a lion’s share of restaurants for practically no charge. I don’t blame Greg as a business man. He is a great entrepreneur and is maximizing his profits by eliminating his competition. He is keeping service to a bare minimum at several restaurants which causes residents to go to his other more profitable/expensive restaurants. It’s pitiful what has happened to HSV’s prime restaurant, DeSoto Club. The parking lot is almost always empty. I especially don’t like how the POA didn’t WIDELY advertise renting these restaurants to competitors.
Lynda Narug
08/21/2021 — 4:06 pm
Apparently the memory or what damage the 2-tier did to neighbors, and continues to do, has left your memory. We still suffer the repercussions, and some even had to send a spouse back to work at a nearby card shop to cover the additional costs. My neighbor, whom we shared many friendly meals and visits with, came to my front door to tell me there’s a small group of villagers who have vowed to ruin us financially. That group was/is Friends of HSV, a self-appointed group of VIPs.
Lorri Street
08/21/2021 — 4:12 pm
Does anyone know if our current Declarations allow for a vote to increase assessments for 5 years into the future? 2022-2026?
Tom Blakeman
08/21/2021 — 5:27 pm
I’ve been meaning to look into this very question. My initial gut feeling is NO. There is also no ability to formally waive the provision for annual COL increases as a board member suggested.
David L. Henderson
08/21/2021 — 8:44 pm
Along those lines Lorri, can a lawyer out there tell us if a sitting Board can compel multiple future Boards to implement assessment increases which they may feel are inappropriate?
Lorri Street
08/22/2021 — 6:01 pm
David…I believe that Rose Law Firm is our current law firm on retainer for HSVPOA (yes, that’s us Property Owners) so WE should be able to ask our questions to the Firm, right? Afterall…WE pay for that retainer fee. Or…will the current BOD’S and/or staff prevent Property Owners access to them?
Lloyd Sherman
08/22/2021 — 8:54 pm
Point of clarification. Rose is our current law firm but they are not on a retainer. They are paid based on use and at competive rates as we were previously receiving by the several law firms we had.
Mark Kent
08/22/2021 — 6:34 am
Compromise and Results
Previously, I said I would vote no to a huge increase in our POA dues. I stated the Board and staff do not have my trust yet. I know that the current dues are too low to provide maintenance and lower level staff salary support that is vastly needed. I believe that others (no guarantee) and myself would be willing to put “trust” on the line (and lack of knowledge about the new GM priorities) and vote for the first two years of proposed increases in order for the Board and new GM to prove themselves. After that, go for more years. If I see more upper level staff, bad contracts, money not directed to maintenance, then I will vote no to future increases. Please do not tell me how much a vote costs. When we are talking about this much money, we can afford another vote. I’ll show some trust, you show some results (improved maintenance and improved project execution and development.)
Michael R Shannon
08/22/2021 — 7:51 am
The fact the board won’t even consider a special assessment with the funds earmarked to only be spent on the maintenance backlog is very telling. They obviously don’t want to be limited in any way when they spend our money.
A sensible proposal to solve our problem would have been the special assessment (the equivalent of a bond issue) combined with a single year increase in dues. That combines accountability with fiscal prudence going forward.
I don’t trust this increase with a booster shot every year afterward.
George Tenuta
08/22/2021 — 10:27 pm
While we all knew this was coming and most agree it is needed, the comments to the article do point out some real concerns about the way this money will be spent.
The board comments about $964,000 is salaries being cut through eliminating positions. What they don’t make clear, the previous boards allowed the organizational changes that created these departments and positions that homeowners questioned and asked for explanation of.
So, what assurances do we have as homeowners that the staff and board won’t go down a rabbit hole of spending these additional millions on projects unrelated to infrastructure?
They (Tucker) is already lamenting that we are loosing/unable to hire people because we don’t pay enough. From what I read, this is an issue for every business. So getting our money and raising salaries or hourly wages without a highly accountable plan of process and cost improvements is just throwing money away. Our managers need very specific goals and objectives that we, as investors, see updated on a quarterly basis with results. Employees need to engaged in improvement at all levels in all areas, work procedures, communication (reporting), contracts, safety, etc. Managers need to be accountable for that happening.
As some suggest in the comments, what would be wrong with special assessments tied to very specific infrastructure needs…(examples) 31 culverts to be replaced at a cost of $800,000 in 2022, 26 miles of roadway to be resurfaced in 2023 at a cost of $500,000. The money would collected as separate assessments in each year and we could see reporting of the accounts and disbursements. Apparently our bylaws don’t allow a general special assessment for infrastructure. Maybe that could be changed?
These are just ideas on how to address the general mistrust of a volunteer board who, as history has shown, fails to push back against staff plans and ask the tough questions. Whether it be because they don’t have the background, just won’t spend the time or don’t want the conflict.