Increases Proposed
The Hot Springs Village Property Owners’ Association Board of Directors will decide on August 25, 2021, the details of a vote to be put to the Property Owners. Within the next several months, Property Owners will most likely be voting whether to approve a monthly assessment increase or not. As Board Chair Corry said, “This is in your hands…We’ll vote to present it to you. That is it.”
Currently improved Property Owners pay close to $70 per month for assessments and unimproved Property Owners pay close to $40. (Numbers are rounded for simplicity.) Director Omohundro shared with us at the August 18, 2021 Board Meeting some of the details of the Board’s plan. Increases Property Owners will be voting on are:
- 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
Board Received Large Email Support In Favor of Bigger Increase Than FRATF Proposed
Originally, the Board was going to go with the Future Revenue Analysis Task Force’s (FRATF) recommendation of their third option, but due to receiving a large influx of email support in favor of a bigger increase, the Board is not supporting FRATF’s recommendation of option 3. (Click here to read FRATF’s three options. There really are four options, with the fourth being no monthly assessment increase.) Director Omohundro said 99% of the emails they have received have been positive. I take this to mean in favor of a large increase.
There is no doubt that the HSVPOA needs an influx of money in order to make a larger dent in the millions of dollars of delayed infrastructure repair. This is my opinion and many will not agree with me. I understand and fully support everyone’s right to their own opinion and also understand and sympathize with the folks who will suffer hardship if there are repeated increases over the southern CPI.
Millions of dollars have been misspent by the POA over the years. The list of failed projects and mismanagement of funds is long.
Unkept Promises
During the HSVPOA’s last campaign for an assessment increase (two-tier), they promised the money would be spent on infrastructure needs and that there would be no new amenities. We know this promise was not kept. A lot of money was frittered away on things like the New Urbanism Comprehensive Master Plan (half a million dollars alone for the plan). This doesn’t even begin to include the money that was spent to “sell” the plan to the Property Owners.
Other areas of spending were in highly paid staff positions such as Director of Placemaking and Chief Member Experience Officer. A new division called, Village Homes and Lands was also developed and staffed. I could go on and on to detail the waste of the past, but I will not. A lot of it is documented on this website and in the minutes of Board Meetings. (I am not disparaging these employees. I am aware they worked hard.)
Special Assessment Option NOT Supported by FRATF and Board of Directors
FRATF and the Board do not support a special assessment. The benefit of a special assessment is that the funds would be mandated to be used for infrastructure and this would hold the POA accountable to spend these funds in the designated manner.
Is there a way besides a special assessment to ensure the POA spends the money on infrastructure and needs instead of wants?
How Bella Vista Handled Its Recent Assessment Increase Vote
Let’s look at our sister community, Bella Vista, Arkansas. While Bella Vista and Hot Springs Village are not the same, there are many similarities. Cooper developed both and formed a POA to govern both. Bella Vista is a municipality and the City of Bella Vista takes care of certain needs while the Bella Vista POA takes care of the recreational amenities and water in Bella Vista.
Bella Vista POA Makes Promises to Property Owners
According to KNWA, in 2019 Bella Vista residents were facing an assessment increase, the same as Hot Springs Village is now. The Bella Vista POA wanted $11 more a month or $132 annually for improved lots (meaning those with a water meter). Additionally, for unimproved lots, the POA asked for a $2 increase. They called it their 2020 plan. The plan was detailed and the Bella Vista POA outlined areas where they planned to spend the assessments.
This is what the Bella Vista POA originally promised:
- Six dollars of the increase will go toward eliminating or reducing our current fees.
- Two dollars will go to pay for the Trafalgar fire and once all those costs are covered, it will be moved into our reserves. [This has to do with a difficult stump dump fire]
- Two dollars will go toward operational costs and capital improvements for the future.
- One dollar will go toward building our reserves.
The Bella Vista assessment increase vote failed, in spite of the POA promises. The POA put this vote up again with a difference. The Bella Vista POA came back and asked the Property Owners to approve a $13 increase for improved lots and ZERO increase for unimproved lots. As it is in Hot Springs Village, in Bella Vista, there are more unimproved lot owners than there are improved lot owners so unimproved Property Owners can vote on an assessment increase for the improved Property Owners. The second Bella Vista vote passed with the assessment funds still being allocated.
Bella Vista POA Gave Back to Property Owners
In addition to allocating the funds for specific purposes, Bella Vista Property Owners now have the opportunity to purchase an activity card. Bella Vista POA used a portion of the assessment increase to reduce recreational fees at certain amenities.
“We’re really pleased about that [the passing of the assessment vote] and now the work begins,” said Bella Vista Property Owners Association Chief Operating Officer Tom Judson. “If a property owner were to purchase an activity card, its a one-time $30 fee and they get unlimited use of the gym, pools, the lake, the beach, the gun range, range balls, green fees at Brittany, and 10% off food purchases at restaurants.”
Assurances and Accountability
What I see as good in the way Bella Vista POA handled their recent assessment increase is that they informed the Bella Vista community where every dollar would be going. I would hope that Bella Vista POA sticks with its promises.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the Hot Springs Village POA Board and Staff let us know dollar-for-dollar where they will be spending the new assessment money (if the increase passes)? Of course, this would need to be a formal written promise.
Is there a way to do this? It seems as if there should be a legal way to do this. If so, then this would go a LONG way in assuring the Property Owners that the POA really wants the increase for infrastructure purposes and other needs and will not waste the money on wants, as has happened in the past. If the Bella Vista POA can do this why can’t the Hot Springs Village POA?
Masterson Demands Accountability
Hot Springs Village Property Owner, Missy Masterson said, “I have NO intention of voting for five increases. The very most I would expect would be to vote for ONE increase, and I want to know FIRST how it will be spent and what assurances will be in place to hold them to their promises. We’ve been down this road before! Sell a vote based on the need for infrastructure repair, then blow it all on fripperies like the failed CMP AND IGNORE THE INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIRS. Even as this whole Village is in an uproar over finances and infrastructure, we now have a new archery facility! What?????”
Blakeman Opposes Increase Before Problems are Solved
In opposition to an assessment increase, Property Owner Tom Blakeman said, “If any increase is granted AT ALL there will NEVER be any changes made to the faulty governance model or the tax and spend culture of the POA in general. Therefore the concept of agreeing (as many seem to be doing) that an increase is needed while opposing a particular amount or type is flawed at its inception. There is only one way to fix the problems here and that is to severely limit the money flow, i.e., NO NEW MONEY, until the basic intrinsic problems are corrected.”
By Joe Dowden, August 20, 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.
Mark Oliver
08/20/2021 — 8:07 pm
I will cast 2 no votes. Too much wasted money thus far with no guarantees regarding the requested increases. No accountability or sense of responsibility. No efforts to be good stewards of the existing revenue and no efforts to live within our means. If this passed, I’m doubtful anything would change and the financial condition would still be poor at the conclusion of these increases. There’s just no existing history warranting my trust. I suspect a significant amount of money will be spent promoting and conducting this vote only to produce a failed vote and a deeper hole. Stop digging.
Scott McCord
08/21/2021 — 9:11 am
Hire Tom Blakeman as the new GM. He will fix all HSV problems.
Andy Kramek
08/21/2021 — 9:43 am
The upcoming vote on raising assessments, whatever that will be, will require that a quorum be obtained for it to be valid. The Declarations specify what constitutes a quorum as follows:
“A majority of all lots or living units whose Owners are in good standing shall constitute a quorum.”
This means, given the numbers from June 2021 when there were 8,912 Improved Lots and 14,252 Unimproved in ‘good standing’ that a total of 11,583 votes from lot owners would be required to constitute the quorum.
Since the POA, at that time, owned 3,443 lots, which, although they cannot vote them, can be counted towards achieving a quorum, the actual votes required to be cast in order to constitute a valid ballot would be 8,140. Of course since June the POA has acquired an additional 2,000 lots, further reducing the number of ballots required to reach a quorum to just 6,140.
Now, let us assume that 70% of the improved lot owners vote (which is 25% MORE than voted in the last Board election), and just 40% of those vote in favor. That would mean 6,250 votes cast – which meets the quorum requirement – and would give 2,500 ‘YES’ votes.
Of course unimproved lot owners also vote, let us assume that just 40% of these vote, and also that only two thirds of them vote in favor (i.e just 25% of all unimproved lot owners). That would mean an additional 5,750 votes in total, with 3,795 ‘YES’ votes.
So the result of this hypothetical ballot would be that 12,000 votes would have been cast with 6,295 in favor. The proposition would pass with 60% of Improved lot owners opposed!
Interesting, isn’t it…
Lloyd Sherman
08/21/2021 — 10:03 am
And that Andy is why we have a built-in divide between home owners vs lot owners because those who don’t live here, or pay the same assessment amount, can overrule the actual residents. I have always advocated that lot owners votes should be based on a fractional share based on the assessment they pay, but of course that will never happen.
Beverly Murphy
08/22/2021 — 1:35 pm
Are you counting Cooper’s votes?
Gene Garner
08/23/2021 — 8:50 am
Cooper’s (CCI) vote is critical to approve an assessment increase. The Declaration requires “a majority vote of each class of members” to pass. A no vote would stop the increase in it’s tracks.
I would think the BOD have already talked with CCI and gained their approval before moving forward
It would be in CCI’s best interest to vote yes because better maintained infrastructure would increase the value of CCI properties in HSV. It’s a pretty simple business decision—Gene
Richard Spires
08/21/2021 — 10:43 am
I am in favor of the increases as proposed by the Board. Comparing HSV and Bella Vista without discussing the cost of road and culvert maintenance is misleading. This increase is long overdue. We paid more HOA dues in Dallas for much less in services and we were not in a gated community.
HSVP C
08/21/2021 — 11:41 am
No, it is not misleading. My husband was in no way trying to compare what the Bella Vista POA assessments are used for in comparison to what our assessment dollars are used for or trying to compare the difference in amounts. You missed the whole point of the article and that was that my husband was asking for the Board to give us a written guarantee on where they plan to use the money. What you paid in Dallas is neither here nor there. Your comment is what is misleading. – Cheryl
Gene Garner
08/21/2021 — 7:49 pm
Comparing POA/HOA dues in other cities or states is flawed reasoning. The cost of goods and services depends on the cost of living in each area.
Personnel wages & salaries are much lower in HSV than Dallas. Even the cost of food in the HWY 7 Walmart is cheaper than any Dallas Walmart. That’s one of the first things I noticed when we moved from Duncanville TX to HSV.
I agree with Joe, we need some sort of binding agreement that a new increase will be spent on needed infrastructure repair & maintenance before any new “feel good” projects.
If our money had been spent prudently by the BOD in the past, there would’ve been no need for a first 2tier assessment increase, let alone a second.—Gene
Tom Blakeman
08/21/2021 — 11:58 am
What we have here is a tax and spend mentality with no accountability for those making the spending decisions (boards) or those actually doing the spending (staff). In fact there is never even any admission of any mistakes or poor judgement. No remorse. Nothing.
In fact this is a mirror image of Washington DC where we have bureaucrats dreaming up what, when, where and how to spend our money and those supposedly representing us going along for the ride. And worse, they get elected by promising to raise taxes.
Joe Dowden
08/21/2021 — 11:58 am
Bella Vista POA informed their property owners exactly how they would spend their assessment increase by the dollar.
This is what the Bella Vista POA originally promised:
*Six dollars of the increase will go toward eliminating or reducing our current fees.
*Two dollars will go to pay for the Trafalgar fire and once all those costs are covered, it will be moved into our reserves. [This has to do with a difficult stump dump fire]
*Two dollars will go toward operational costs and capital improvements for the future.
*One dollar will go toward building our reserves.
Please post the Hot Springs Village POA’s breakdown on how our assessment increase will be spent. You can’t, because there is no breakdown. We have zero guarantee how our money will be spent.
Tom Blakeman
08/21/2021 — 12:11 pm
Exactly Joe. And there is no guarantee that (as Tucker stated) there will be no COLA increase implemented by this or future boards. Just wait till we have 10% inflation next year and see what happens.
Andy Kramek
08/21/2021 — 4:10 pm
Exactly Joe. One of the major things that is missing from this whole debate is just HOW the additional funds generated are going to be used. FRATF may have identified a ‘hole’ in the finances, but I must have missed where they specified how the increased funds were going to be used. Silly me, I know.
Chris vonAspern
08/21/2021 — 11:11 pm
Joe is right on. The Board has never given us a plan for all the expenditures they are discussing in private. How much of the increase will be earmarked for WHAT. WHAT is a big question … embellished in a tremendous amount of doubt we can trust where and how the additional funds will be spent.
Marc Bayer
08/21/2021 — 6:31 pm
I’ll put more credence to the hard working FRAFT members than to those who are in constant opposition to the POA and to the BOD and I certainly would not want to follow what the failing community of Bella Vista does.
Other than the handful of self righteous hypercritics who will not accept clear thinking recommendations , property owners want to give HSV the opportunity to thrive
HSVP C
08/21/2021 — 6:45 pm
First of all, Bella Vista is not failing. Are you saying the author of this article is in “constant opposition to the POA and BOD?” Not true. Are you saying that the HSVPOA should not assure us what the money is to be spent on? Marc, why don’t you just write them a blank check? Methinks there is a handful of self-righteous and silly trouble makers. Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and donate to the HSVPOA? And BTW, the author of this article gives plenty of respect and credence to FRATF, as do I. Just because you say something, doesn’t make it so, Marc.
Marc Bayer
08/21/2021 — 9:11 pm
You failed as a Director and your attempt to have yourself installed as GM is laughable. Over a five year time frame it is impossible to guarantee what the priorities will be.
I have a lot more trust in the BOD than I have in those who are in constant ridicule of them.
HSVP C
08/21/2021 — 9:31 pm
Are you serious? I never failed as a Director. I was never a Board Director and never attempted to have myself installed as a GM. I think you are horribly confused, Marc. Thanks for the comedic relief. You are posting misinformation.
Marc Bayer
08/23/2021 — 7:07 pm
I actually thought the author I was responding to was Loyd Sherman.
I see you as being the vessel for all those who are recalcitrant and need an outlet to talk at each other. Here is where the silly trouble makers reside.
HSVP J
08/22/2021 — 7:03 am
Bella Vista is thriving. In fact, they are doing so well they offered this to their property owners:
“Bella Visa Property Owners Association Chief Operating Officer Tom Judson. “If a property owner were to purchase an activity card, its a one-time $30 fee and they get unlimited use of the gym, pools, the lake, the beach, the gun range, range balls, green fees at Brittany, and 10% off food purchases at restaurants.”
Bella Vista also informed their property owners exactly on how their assessment increase will be spent:
This is what the Bella Vista POA originally promised:
*Six dollars of the increase will go toward eliminating or reducing our current fees.
*Two dollars will go to pay for the Trafalgar fire and once all those costs are covered, it will be moved into our reserves. [This has to do with a difficult stump dump fire]
*Two dollars will go toward operational costs and capital improvements for the future.
*One dollar will go toward building our reserves.
Did FRATF or our Board break down to the dollar what their proposed assessment increase will fund? The answer is NO!
It is amazing that you expect property owners to swallow another assessment increase without a guarantee from HSVPOA on how and where the money will be spent. Property owners fell for that in the 2015 two-tier increase and it was squandered on everything except what the 2014 Assessment Committee proposed.
Michael R Shannon
08/22/2021 — 7:17 am
I’m amazed a board proposed and the voters passed a proposal that lets non-residents vote to raise the fees on residents. It’s a dishonest way to make sure almost every proposal to increase the POA assessments passes, as long as the non-residents don’t pay as much as residents.
It is the definition of a tyranny of the majority.
Larry Gremillion
08/22/2021 — 9:12 am
I know it is just a simple question, but how can the POA-owned lots be considered as part of the quorum? The declaration does not allow any such class of property. It only allows two classes, property owner and developer. For voting purposes, the lots have to be current in their assessments. If the POA-owned lots do not pay assessments, how can they be current? The declarations also allow the POA to own property, but only for specified purposes; owning lots for resale is NOT one of those purposes.
Andy Kramek
08/22/2021 — 10:08 am
It is addressed in the by-laws under Section2 of the Voting Rights:
“In all elections, voting is limited to members in good standing. Votes deriving from lots
owned by the Property Owners Association will not be cast in elections for Directors of the
Association. Votes deriving from lots owned by the Property Owners Association will be
cast in the same proportion as the votes cast by all other members in good standing on all
remaining elections under the Declaration.”
In other words the POA owned lots are counted. However they cannot be used to affect the result since they are assigned in the same proportion as all other votes.
Tom Blakeman
08/22/2021 — 1:08 pm
I’d have to check but I believe the bylaws you quoted were revised by a certain board so that they could be used as they were.
Melinda Alvord
08/24/2021 — 3:40 pm
This By-Law revision was done in April 2012. Board members at that time were Jerry Kosoglow, John Cooney, Bob Brandt, Tom Bryant, Kathie Feather, Mike Misch, and Jim Owens.
Tom Blakeman
08/24/2021 — 4:00 pm
Interesting. Was this bylaw change whereby POA lots could be used for quorum used at any other time beside (prior to) the Two Tier vote?
Melinda Alvord
08/24/2021 — 5:44 pm
Tom, yes this By-Law change occurred approx. 2 years before the two-tier election if that is what you’re asking me. It came up following the Declaration change that as voted on in 2012. The Board realized that as more lots were being abandoned, they would need to address how the POA could/should vote the growing number of lots the POA was accumulating.
Dan Leathers
08/22/2021 — 10:16 am
Can anyone advocating an assessment increase tell me what improved after the last increase (2 tier)?
How the deferred maintenance load was reduced?
How many lot owners defaulted?
How many new management positions were created?
How salaries as a percentage of revenue has changed?
Can you tell me why you think things will improve after a further increase? Specifics, please. Simply stating you trust the board won’t do
Mrs. Katherine Miller
08/23/2021 — 9:47 am
We have a projected 2022 budget deficit of roughly $9,000,000.
Marc Bayer
08/23/2021 — 7:10 pm
I actually thought the author I was responding to was Loyd Sherman.
I see you as being the vessel for all those who are recalcitrant and need an outlet to talk at each other. Here is where the silly trouble makers reside.
Walter Chance
08/23/2021 — 8:50 pm
My understanding is there are companies, many of them, that own hundreds of lots in HSV. Obviously it is in there best interest to improve roads and infrastructure. Why would they vote no when their increase is minimal compared to the 80% increase us homeowners are going to be stuck with. Will they still side with the BODs if nothing happens with road and infrastructure spending. Doesn’t matter. Once the vote passes, the money is the POAs to spend how they please. I don’t see this POA describing how the money will be spent. I would have voted for one increase. But as explained above, my vote doesn’t matter. I will still vote, but I already know the outcome unless by some miracle the lot owners vote no.
Melinda Alvord
08/24/2021 — 8:05 pm
I don’t think there are “many of them” and I would bet that a large percentage are not in good standing. Lots are bought up cheap for speculation and a quick turn over, with clouded titles and no intention of ever paying any dues.
Walter Chance
08/24/2021 — 8:17 pm
You don’t consider many of them? 34,000 outstanding lots. Companies that own hundreds if not thousands of lots. I think you are not aware that the the Village is only 26% built out. The majority vote are lot owners.
Stan Kaleta
09/15/2021 — 3:08 pm
My wife and I only been here 4 years and during that time many puzzling issues were unraveling with the P.O.A , B.O.D. with urbanization through C.M.P implementation, we were ready to relocate but this soon passed with the vote failing. Now with this new vote this Fall we have not the confidence for a yes vote…. why! The rhetoric coming out of the B.O.D still does not make sense and is ambiguous on future outlays. We did not know about the archery range !, Director of Place-making !,Chief Member Experience Officer!, a Land Office of some sort?< sounds like Washington. Personally, I believe special interest groups are behind this move. This Cooper Community was developed in 1970 with H.O.A dues around $ 8.00 /mo, $ 12.00 in 1980, and enventually $ 39.00 in around 2000. Our country went through massive inflation during the 1970s`,and yet was able to maintain expenses… I have a degree in Economics and worked for Alcoa for 40 years with $ 600 million operation ,if someone dis-spells my thread… lets pull up a chair!