By Missy Masterson, October 15, 2021
At the meeting where the “policy” was unveiled, the pointed question was asked, “Can you guarantee this policy will be adhered to by future Boards and the POA?” THEIR ANSWER WAS, “NO, ANY POLICY CAN BE OVERTURNED BY A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF ANY FUTURE BOARD.” This was said in front of hundreds of witnesses and is on the official video of the meeting.
I think most people who are voting NO have zero trust in the governance and management of the Village because of the recent track record of poor fiscal responsibility, poor management, and broken promises. The very last assessment increase was “sold” to Villagers based on extensive infrastructure repairs that were direly needed. I’m pretty sure those slick and expensive marketing materials are still available if you need proof. The assessment almost doubled, but once it passed, the money was diverted to new amenities, salaries, and fringe benefits for upper management, and pet projects, and the infrastructure sat unrepaired and continued to deteriorate. I believe this concern is the key issue… not the fact that an increase could be useful.
Although the name of the committee is “Future Revenue Task Force” there have been few suggested new revenue sources and cost-cutting measures planned. I believe we are sitting on a goldmine here, and should not overlook new sources of revenue. One option suggested regarding prudent management of our most precious resource, our frontline non-management employees, was to cut the fat (salaries, fringe benefits) at the top by 20% and use that savings to increase the salaries of our frontline workers. This never even made it to a BOD discussion.
Are you aware the last GM brought in was unsatisfied with the POA-Owned vehicle he was offered so he bought a new one with our money? I don’t drive a new, or any age, vehicle given to me to use for free that is paid for by my employer… do you?
How about the $500,000+ dollars wasted on a Comprehensive Master Plan to turn this Village into a New Urbanism complex, which most residents did not want!
Are you aware the recruiting firm chosen to search for a new GM specializes in employees for grocery stores and other retail concerns?
Are you aware The DeSoto Club required very expensive repairs because this asset was so poorly managed that no one thought to turn off the water and drain the pipes before a huge freeze hit?
Are you aware we’ve already had to pay huge amounts to repair new amenities (pickleball courts, outdoor swimming pool, etc.) because their construction was so poorly managed?
How about the recent new trash truck debacle – was this really a prudent new project to spend millions of dollars on at this time? These are just a few examples of recent poor management here in HSV.
A Special Assessment option was requested because it can be enforceably guaranteed to be spent on infrastructure repairs. But this request of many residents was ignored and not even put on the ballot as an option. Many find this suspicious. If this had been an option, I would have voted YES. However, as it stands now, an unenforceable policy is the only assurance offered that the money will be spent prudently and on infrastructure repairs as promised. I cannot support that and will be voting NO for my properties.
I want to preserve and maintain our beautiful Village. The people who are voting yes say they believe they must do so to preserve and maintain our Village. However, if this is true, the yes voters must also realize there is NO guarantee as to how this money will be spent, which includes this unenforceable policy. It was done to placate concerns, not because it would guarantee where the money goes. A Special Assessment would have guaranteed where the money goes, and could not be overturned by a supermajority vote of this or any future board.
Hindsight is 20/20 and those like myself who have lived here many years (23 for me) see an abysmal track record in the recent past. Trust must be earned, especially once broken. A compromise would be to offer HSV a Special Assessment option, which I believe would garner much support, and let us see how the money and infrastructure repairs are handled. This would be a perfect opportunity to regain the trust of the residents.
* * *
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. Be sure to bookmark this website.
Greg and Kathryn Paquin
10/15/2021 — 4:30 pm
Missy Masterson accurately states the equation that faces property owners. I, too, would support a special assessment with stated goals and costs. I, too, look at the recent dismal construction projects requiring repairs very quickly after ‘completed construction’ as an indicator of what to expect. To my knowledge the technical expertise needed to move forward has not been outlined as either a new hire or by using an appropriate consulting firm. Given nearly 20 years of recruiting experience at senior management level (i.e. CFO/VP/Sr Director/Product Developement, Design for HW/SW etc. for high tech) for Fortune 500 clients, I am shocked by the choice of search firm to identify GM talent. The one chosen does not specialize in HOA/POA talent.. None of us would go to a shoe store for a power saw. The garbage truck project is absurd especially in view of the country wide supply chain breakdown. Timing is also suspect, given basic infrastructure deferred maintenance. Fool me once; that’s on you. Fool me twice, that’s on me for believing past behavior is not a predictor of future behavior and consequences. I very much want to support an influx of revenue for HSV. However, in concept the need for revenue is correct. The proposed method to build that revenue has significant issues yet to be resolved.
Lorri Street
10/15/2021 — 6:07 pm
Misty…you mentioned the pickleball courts overhaul…as of this past Tuesday when I last played we already have 1 court closed off because of ‘bubbling’ and a few other courts that are already showing signs of breakdown. Let’s just hope the POA received a guarantee this time around as they somehow missed that mark when the new courts were 1st installed. Cha’ching…here we go again!
Lloyd Sherman
10/15/2021 — 10:07 pm
I don’t believe that most Villager’s question whether an INFRASTRUCTURE increase was needed, but rather were looking for accountability, tracking, and prudent spending. As has been so eloquently stated, our past track record on spending (especially following the two-tier) has been anything but stellar. Special assessments increases for specific projects/processes would have sailed through the voting system, IMHO. If anyone is on the fence about how they want to vote, I suggest you take the time to review V1 and V2 of the proposed budgets before you make your final decision. While I was pleased to see the effort to attempt to protect future boards from changing how funds are spent, I fear the solution offered will not match the intent. Way too many boards have been known to vote in lock step and there is no guarantee that will not occur in the future.
As for the YES signs all over the Village, all I can say to the Board is shame on you. YOU decided to spend general funds to only air one side of a discussion; including the propaganda that is going out. People who are not in support of the way things are rolling out (again) are being told to move, or to simply shut up.
To address the lack of revenue issue, the only answer that has been provided is the same one government rolls out. Increases in assessments, fees, and utility rates. Nothing on increasing the revenue stream either because we don’t know how, or the comp plans are not set up to drive top line numbers. By the same token, neither are comp plans set up for the reduction of costs, or improvements to the process that would lead to lower costs.
The other factor I see conflicting information on and that seems to be going totally unrecognized is that for the last several years our bad debt expense has been growing at 1,000,000 a year. Do we understand what is driving those numbers up each year. I don’t believe we do, but we should. This increase was spawned by the last increase that was wasted so it occurs to me that we don’t want to see unintended consequences like that occur again. The new buy-in fees is not being supported by the real estate community board of directors as they fear it will cool what has become a very desirable marketplace.
So once again for the fence sitters. I suggest you pour through the upcoming budgets to see how you feel about how money is being budgeted for 2022 and beyond.
I continue to get called all sorts of names because I insist that we can walk and chew gum at the same time and that if focus was not only provided on changing the way we manage the Village, we could see the Village improve INFRASTRUCTURE backlogs with special assessments, increase our revenue stream and improve operations with the right management decision. I don’t believe asking a recruiter who specializes in consumer products will know what qualities to look for in a leader who can increase revenues by controlling or reducing expenses. I hope I am wrong about that.
Mark Oliver
10/16/2021 — 6:51 am
Looks like we now have threats from a board member toward a property owner. The evidence is making the rounds on social media. Immediate resignation or removal is required.
Lorri Street
10/16/2021 — 7:14 am
Hi Lloyd I was surprise to see your name on the list (of a full page HSV Voice ad) of Option 1 YES voters. Very curious to me?
Lloyd Sherman
10/16/2021 — 9:38 am
Lorri,
I’m surprised you’re surprised. If you have been following any of my comments they have always said I thought an assessment increase was needed. So yes, I am in favor of some kind of an assessment increase. I would have preferred it be done as special assessments for defined projects. I have also called for accountability and tracking and I applaud the board for at least trying to protect future boards from changing the direction, but as we all know, most boards vote in lock step as one past Chair said, we need to work towards consensus. Which is double-speak for vote with the majority, so getting 6 of 7 of a board of 7 (if we even had one) is not that difficult and I refer you back to the Nalley perpetual contract to prove my point.
So now you see why it might be easy to agree with the overall concept but disagree with how it is rolled out. And to be clear, just because my name was on a list of Sheeple that support the fact we need an increase, our household is clearly in the NO column at this point. Since agreeing that we need an assessment increase, the upcoming budget and the rollout have moved me from support of to being against the increase because nothing else is going to change to alter the spend, spend, spend culture.
As another example, I know you recall the Vote No campaign regarding Declarations. I was solidly in the NO column on that one only because it was a total overreach by the POA. There were some components of what was proposed that should have been given serious consideration, but because it was an all or nothing effort, it had to be nothing. Unfortunately, the intentions of a well-meaning assessment increase could well be scuttled because of how it has been rolled out. I am not in agreement to begin charging buy-in fees in concert with an assessment increase! I am not in favor of the projected compensation increase of $3,000,000 when all along we were told this was all about INFRASTRUCTURE. That turns out not to be the case. Some of the $3 mil is most likely warranted, but increasing that line item at this point is not in keeping with controlling costs.
Finally, it is difficult to have a real conversation about things via the written word when you don’t have a chance to explain how or why you feel about a subject or why you might have changed your mind as you observed how the sausage was being made.
Hope that helps clear up my position.
Kirk Denger
10/16/2021 — 10:29 pm
Crystal clear, speaks with forked tongue, can always be trusted to say one thing while doing exactly the opposite. True productive talents are walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Lorri Street
10/17/2021 — 10:35 am
Lloyd…your name on the list of HSV Property Owners full page ad in the HSV Voice (who have aligned to Vote YES on the Proposed Option 1 assessment increase, clearly indicates your support of that Option.
I too, as many, many HSV Property Owners feel their is the need to have assessment increased…just in the manner the BOD has proposed in Option 1.
Just wanted to clearly state my position, once again.
Lloyd Sherman
10/17/2021 — 11:33 am
Lorri,
Leave it to you to try and make something out of nothing. I didn’t write or review what the FOV’s posted. You continue to try and twist what I say into something it is not. MY VOTE IS NO! Not because it is not need but because how it has been rolled out. The BUDGET will indicate how they plan to spend the money and while I also support evaluation of entry level positions, I did not know or even suspect that our Board would entertain a $3,000,000 (THAT’S 3 MILLION) on the compensation line which will be with us for all years going forward. SO ONCE AGAIN AND TO BE CLEAR, OUR FAMILY VOTE IS NO!
Lorri Street
10/17/2021 — 12:37 pm
Thanks Lloyd for splain’n! Wow…3million budgeted for forthcoming salaries!!?? How IS that infrastructure?
Still voting NO on Option 1. We need an assessment increase but with strings attached.
Allen Curtis
10/16/2021 — 9:18 am
Has anybody really studied and compared (or had easy access to) the two budgets. One is the “austerity budget” to be implemented if the NOs prevail and the other is the budget for spending the increased funds from a yes vote on infrastructure? Now ask yourself after you have done this homework, are these increases really Village infrastructure needs or POA management wish lists? I hope our Board and fellow Villagers remember where the FRAT data and budget numbers originated from, and fear that many decisions on how to vote will be greatly misinformed.
If you are into the study of facts on Village issues, I would encourage you to examine where and how the past missteps and frivolous expenditures occurred and if necessary corrections have been made in all, or any of the Village management areas, top to bottom. One key area we seem to neglect and not change is our accountability and budgeting approval and budget control process. More money always trumps good management….. especially if it is other peoples money.
Lloyd Sherman
10/16/2021 — 12:34 pm
Budgets have not been released for property owners to review. Any information gained by property owners would have only been through the Discussion Sessions and looking at their slide presentation. Indications are the board plans to approve the fee schedule and V1 of the budget at next weeks meeting, which means it should be released for property owner review on Monday in preparation for the Wednesday board meeting.
George K (Ken) Phillis
10/16/2021 — 3:34 pm
“Yes” signs have been placed all over the Village yet a property owner can only place their “No” sign in their yard. In another post Tucker responded in part with……”We swore an oath to do what we felt was best for this community. We feel this is best and we will spend money to help secure it.” Yes the BOD swore an oath to do what is best for the community. Does that include attempting to sway an election? Tucker also mentioned spending money. Whose money? POA money? POA money is the property owners money. If it’s POA money how much is “not much” (Tuckers comment)? So the BOD is possibly using POA money to defeat an election which is for the purpose of determining what the property owners want? Daja vu all over again. Remember when the BOD attempted to sway the vote regarding the declarations? They spent property owners money in an effort to sway that election…..and it wsn’t “chump change”. They failed in that effort. What the BOD and the “yes” voters do not understand (or maybe accept) is that those who are voting “No” are making a statement. As has been said many times…..they understand the need to raise assessments however they want, and for good reason, a plan that includes definitive measures to insure the money will be spent where management says it will be spent, to include the infrastructure. No one in management seemed to be listening. How to get their attention? Vote the measure down and go back to the table, even if it’s one or more years later.
It did get their attention as demonstrated by the last townhall meeting. The problem is that there is still no solid plan for the assurance the money is going to go where it is slated to be spent. The super majority idea does not provide any real assurance. In the past the BOD has rubber stamped all the poor financial decisions so what chance would there be of obtaining a super majority from a board? About the same chance as an ice cube lasting more than 10 minutes on a hot sidewalk in the middle of a Texas Summer afternoon. Dire situations require dire actions. It seems a “No” vote is the only way management might start doing the right thing and making good financial decisions. The threats of gates going down, ambulance service being stopped etc is fear mongering by the BOD in a big way. Shame on this administration for such tactics. If the BOD is sincere in what they say then put together a plan with a mechanism to restrict the funds. How about development by the BOD of a restricted/dedicated fund for deferred maintenance where a specific amount is place into a fund every month when assessments are collected? For instance if the assessment is raised to $100 per month a certain percentage of that money is immediately placed into the deferred maintenance fund which is restricted for the sole use of infrastructure. Of course there would need to be a definition of infrastructure. Our BOD/GM should not have a problem coming up with such a dedicated/restricted fund if they intend to use the money as they say. If the BOD does this they would have an easier time of increasing the assessments as is needed at this time. The caveat is property owners want to be assured by concrete measures the money will not be frittered away as so often has happened in the past. Until then it’s time for dire measures……vote NO.
HSVP J
10/16/2021 — 10:18 pm
Totally agree!
Chari Bouse
10/16/2021 — 5:19 pm
History will always repeat itself – IF
If nothing was learned from the past mistakes. Is it time to go to a municipality and open the gates?
No? That is the lure you say? Then it will cost us.
Vote Yes – and take a chance that this board will spend the money appropriately.
Vote No – and in a few short years we will have to become a municipality like some other communities have done. Will crime go up? Not necessarily, because money will come in from the state and county for infrastructure and for our first responders. AND there is limited access, it is not like a robber can jump on the freeway and be gone in a flash. You can look at the city of Maumelle, Arkansas. It has limited access and low Crime per capita for Pulaski County. Just saying.
A lot is at stake here. Vote wisely. But please VOTE!
Susan Posner
10/16/2021 — 5:57 pm
HSV is in the cross hairs. Yes will tank values and the sharks are waiting in the wings. Should insisted on special assessment, no buy ins(uh just buying a property is the buy in, should have been aimed at tenants) Because this is the future of HSV…setting it up for even more failure
https://retipster.com/mashvisorreview/
https://www.mashvisor.com/explore/search?city=Hot%20Springs%20Village&state=AR&lat=34.6720356&lng=-92.9987886&country=United%20States&neighborhood=&zipCode=&listings=Investment&page=1
Just the messenger. Peace
Lorri Street
10/17/2021 — 10:44 am
The HSV Property Owners have been wrongly suppressed in their representation of a Vote NO on the proposed Option 1 assessment increase. I was stunned to read Tucker’s reply to the Villager asking why Property Owners against Option 1 could not also place Vote NO signs in and around the Village. His response? ‘The BOD’s voted against that’. What??? Our own HSV BOD’s voted against the membership (who pay the bills) to allow the same access within the Village to place their opposition signs? Dictatorship directing suppression of the will of many Village Property Owners!