Tucker Omohundro, October 15, 2021
The board met from 10:00 AM until about 4:00 PM Wednesday. The meeting from 10:00 to 2:30 was to do two in-house GM interviews. The rest was a standard meeting to finish reviewing the budget proposals. This is really not relevant but explains the following comments.
We did get time to have lunch. The board chair ask a question at lunch that got me thinking. The question was “what are we going to do if the assessment increase fails?”. I quickly responded, that we could not really answer that question, until we saw the vote.
Here is what I meant by that statement: I as a board member make decisions that I think are best for the community. I was voted to the board to do just that. I ran on a platform to do things and a majority voted for me. To me there vote told me what they wanted. I was able to follow through on those things.
Having said that, since then I have had to rely on what I, and other board members, believed the villagers wanted. That’s hard to determine when so many villagers do not agree. I hope this makes sense.
The election results will again help me, as a board member, to understand what the majority wants.
We could have tried to get bonds to fix our situation, but I think that would be the wrong way to go. That basically forces you to pay more with out any options.
In my opinion that is not how we should act as a board. I personally know what I want, but it’s not my decision to make. It’s the property owner’s decision.
If this vote fails, then that will send a message to the board. Please understand that message though. The message is that you don’t believe we need more money, or you don’t want to continue with the services that the village offers. I can’t tell you what services you want, but most came here for what we have now I think.
We did go out and get a tremendous group of qualified people to tell us what we needed to go forward and maintain this village. That information is on the website. Please read it so you can make an informed decision. The numbers do not lie. I personally did not know where they would end up, and I am/was closer to the situation than most. I actually thought we would need 125.00 a month. I am happy I was wrong.
For those who say cut the fat, I say we have. 1.4 million in upper level management salaries and benefits have been cut. No new projects. We also have set a policy that will make it very difficult for future boards to change where the money. That helps insure where the moneys will be spent. That’s the best we can do until we can have a declaration vote in 2027.
Contrary to what many think, the villagers make these decisions. The BOD does not. The majority rules in government, and it also rules in the village. All this is coming from my personal perspective and not the board, as I am not speaking for them. This is for the property owners to decide. Please vote and make an educated decision.
My biggest fear is that many will make their decision thinking nothing will change. No one can truly believe that a no vote will not change the Village. It’s not possible. I am anxious to see what HSV will be in the future. Thanks for reading.
Editor’s note: This message was sent to us by Hot Springs Village Property Owners’ Association Board Vice-Chairperson, Tucker Omohundro. He has asked us to publish this message here on the Hot Springs Village People dot com website. The words the Vice-chair sent are stated above, exactly as he sent them, except for some paragraph breaks for easier reading.
* * *
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.
Jeffery Hill
10/15/2021 — 1:22 pm
Thanks Tucker for that statement. I believe that the majority of us believe that we must increase the assessment. But I also feel like others, that we want guarantees that this increase will goto infrastructure and not the general fund to be used for anything like has been done in past practices. If a special assessment had been presented I don’t think it would have any problems passing. I know the board resently passed article 29 (budget prioritization policy) but can be changed with a supermajority vote. I (we) want a better guarantee this goes for infrastructure.
Jama Lopez
10/15/2021 — 1:43 pm
From everything I’m reading, the Villagers absolutely understand the need for additional funding. And, as Jeffrey Hill said, had this been brought to us as a special assessment, I believe it would have passed without controversy.
Kim Victorine
10/15/2021 — 1:51 pm
Thanks for sharing your insight on this Tucker. We also believe that the assessment has been too low for far too long. This community is definitely “One of a kind” and needs to be kept that way for now and more importantly in the future. Getting a balance financial plan by cost cutting alone gets us nowhere. Cost cutting = service elimination or reduction. The BOD has done a good job of reducing expenditures over the last year. For that they have our gratitude. But added revenue is what is needed. I know an increase is not acceptable to a vocal minority, but I hope a majority vote to support this increase.
bob mollerberg
10/15/2021 — 6:46 pm
Ms. Kim,
Revenue enhancement & expense control are not mutually exclusive. I believe we should embrace both!
Dan Hitch
10/15/2021 — 2:22 pm
Thanks Tucker
Linda Anderson
10/15/2021 — 3:49 pm
Mr. Omohundro, Last night on Nexdoor, you made a threat against a property owner in a manner unbefitting that of a Board Vice-Chairman. Care to comment?
Tucker Omohundro
10/15/2021 — 4:27 pm
I will. It was a couple nights ago. When people continue to call me a liar and a cheat it bothers me. Especially when I ask them to explain why they say this. The gentleman couldn’t but kept on. I am different than most any board member you have probably ever seen. I am not politically correct in any way. When someone attacks me personally I don’t stand for it. It’s real simple. I do not allow people to hind behind a keyboard. You may not agree with this but as you may now understand, I really don’t care.
Pete Salas
10/15/2021 — 4:08 pm
It’s hard to believe that this vote is not set up by the board. With all the vote yes signs all over the village with no restrictions. I asked if I could put up vote no signs in the village. The complance officer I spoke with said not in the village only on my property. Now is that fair representation on both sides. I think not, I would hope that when the next issue comes up we could have fairness on both sides.
Tucker Omohundro
10/15/2021 — 5:36 pm
It was set up by the board. We felt the need, as most do that an assessment increase was needed. 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. Not much though. The board has the responsibility for this village. Sorry if you don’t agree. Three board positions will be open in April for those that are interested. It’s fun. 👍
peter Salas
10/15/2021 — 7:19 pm
See you then
peter Salas
10/15/2021 — 7:27 pm
Then the comment you made that “It’s the property owner’s decision” should be taken down.
Lorri Street
10/17/2021 — 10:49 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? “It was set up by the board. We felt the need, as most do that an assessment increase was needed.” 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 by ‘our’ BOD’s directing suppression of the will of many Village Property Owners…wow, now that’s egregious behavior by ‘our’ Board.
Click to Edit –
Tucker Omohundro
10/17/2021 — 10:54 pm
Lorri I would like you to show where I answered anyone about putting up vote no signs. If not then please sag you were wrong. I will if I said it. Will you?
Michael R Shannon
10/28/2021 — 11:24 am
How about here, when you wrote in a direct answer to a woman asking why ‘No’ signs weren’t allowed on POA property: “It was set up by the board. We felt the need, as most do that an assessment increase was needed. 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. Not much though. The board has the responsibility for this village. Sorry if you don’t agree. Three board positions will be open in April for those that are interested. It’s fun.”
Al Lipson
10/15/2021 — 5:25 pm
The basic question is not whether we need an assessment increase to repair and maintain our infrastructure, but the question is why a SPECIAL ASSESSMENT was never proposed to address those issues. PROPERTY OWNERS are fed up with this blank check policy that you and the board continually endorse to perpetually WASTE PROPERTY OWNER MONEY. Look around the village…how many yes signs, and at what cost did this inept BOD approve, to perpetuate the exact policy I noted above ? Tucker, I can tell you, as well as others, where to blow smoke. If you don’t like it, don’t let the door smack you in the aXX on your way out. If YOU don’t like it…YOU MOVE !!!
Tucker Omohundro
10/15/2021 — 10:19 pm
Is taken care of the village something special. It’s not a pool or a golf course we need. That’s what special assessments are for. We start maintaining the village on special assessments many will not buy here. What’s real funny to me is that if we ask for a special assessment many would complain about that. Some people here crack me up. Many enjoy watching what they say and will say next.
Linda Anderson
10/15/2021 — 10:41 pm
Ref: Your Response To Threatening A Property Owner.
Mr. Omohundro, there were no personal attacks against you as a liar or a cheat. Your threats were disgraceful and showed great contempt for the people you represent. You appear to be someone who does not care about anything except power and control. What you could not handle was the dreaded question that was asked and you knew you could not answer: Where is the proof that there was a $ 6.7 Mil. shortfall? As you said you don’t care. Not caring about the Village is unthinkable and dishonors a Board member’s position.
Tucker Omohundro
10/15/2021 — 11:35 pm
I said I did not care what you thought of me. Actually I would hope that you didn’t like me. It would not be something I was proud of. The task force showed where the 6.7 million shortfall is, it dies require being able to read financial reports to understand. I can’t explain things to people that can’t understand. I did not post this for comments. It is just the facts as I know them and my opinion. Really didn’t care if anyone agreed. I just thought they should understand. It’s their choice now. It will then become the boards choice about what to do. It will be what the villagers want. I can live with that. Can you?
Susan Posner
10/16/2021 — 3:17 am
Sure don’t act like a vested board member since “you don’t care” runs through all of your comments. Shame as that is fiduciary breach. Peace
Jama Lopez
10/16/2021 — 7:45 am
A wise man one time told me, when you write a harsh letter, let it sit on the credenza for a day, then go back and review it before you send it. You may want to soften your words before mailing the letter.
Mark Oliver
10/16/2021 — 6:54 am
Threats against a property owner require immediate resignation or removal.
Tucker Omohundro
10/16/2021 — 9:11 am
Good luck with that. I actually wish it did.😉
Michale Lane
10/16/2021 — 9:09 am
Since Tucker brought up “Bonds” and their cost being more, maybe he could explain the actual cost of taking out a bond to repair some infrastructure here in the village? He seemed to be a little lite on these details in his initial statement.
Tucker Omohundro
10/16/2021 — 10:42 am
Bonds just like special assessments are typically used for something that is a one time thing. We get a bond to fix this or that. Then we pay for it plus interest over a certain time period. Understand if we get a bond to pay for roads and culverts and our water or sewer system fails we can’t use it for that. I am not sure if you can get a bond for multiple things or not but basically we would need one for many things. I ran some numbers on our cost for bonds the other day assuming the same amount of money the task force said we needed. The cheapest cost to us in the first five years would be 34 dollars a month starting when the bond was received. The moneys would be spent over the five years and then we would have to start over again. We don’t know what the cost would be then because interest rates change. Some again may argue that we don’t need that much money but this is based on the numbers as they have been presented to us. Again why would we borrow money and pay more than we truly have to. I personally would not borrow money to live unless I had to. Bonds are basically loans that you only pay the interest on until maturity. Then you pay the total amount back. It gets expensive. Feel free to google this so you don’t have to wonder if I am correct. Hope this explains bonds better. This goes out to everyone else. I know people think this will guarantee we can’t spend it on other things and that’s right we can’t. Do you not realize we have millions of other dollars to waste if that’s truly what we wanted. Think hard about that. They really are no guarantees period. Thanks
Jama Lopez
10/16/2021 — 1:19 pm
Thank you, Tucker! I believe Larry Siener said we could only get bonds for water and sewer. I do know it’s quite a process and the rating process can be cumbersome. I think it was just an idea for hybrid revenue (financing) sources.
Susan Posner
10/16/2021 — 2:47 pm
That’s because municipal utilities are not part of property owner assessments, not attached to any owner’s property, it’s part of the easement and a separate use utility.(governed by federal/state laws) and that is for all municipal provided water/sewer. Therefore would not require all property owner signatures for bond. Don’t know why anyone would purchase bond for water/sewer that can be raised in of itself without vote. Non profit IRS status limits revenue sources and we are still a non profit to date.
Jama Lopez
10/16/2021 — 3:14 pm
Susan,
I believe the bonds are now a moot point. However, I do wonder, with the information you have provided, how and when we did take out bonds. I believe it’s now about $2,000,000 on our balance sheet. I’m sure the audit report can explain the details.
Thank you
Susan Posner
10/17/2021 — 7:42 am
word for the day=fidelity bonds
George K(Ken) Phillis
10/16/2021 — 1:50 pm
Tucker,
Thank you for your recent post regarding the comment “if the yes vote fails”.
From my viewpoint, after reading a myriad of comments over the last several months and listening to people I believe the majority of those who lean toward a no vote do realize, and agree there needs to be an increase in assessments. I have no doubt about that. What they do want, in my opinion, is a concrete or substantial system that will, without question “earmark” specific monies toward the infrastructure.
They are not confident the money is actually going to be spent on the infrastructure. Unfortunately the amount of deferred maintenance money is a bit staggering. I’ve not seen, or heard anyone blaming this current board for the hole we currently find ourselves. It certainly is a situation brought on by property owners falling asleep at the wheel and past boards making poor decisions. That combination is the biggest reason why we are where we are today.
Has there ever been a discussion of a dedicated/restricted fund for deferred maintenance where a specific amount is placed into that fund every year/month?
For instance the assessment becomes $100 per month. A certain percentage of that money is immediately set aside into the deferred maintenance fund and is restricted for the sole use of infrastructure. The same could be done with the “buy in” money.
My wife and I attended the last townhall meeting which clearly demonstrated the BOD has been listening to those who lean toward a no vote. The entire meeting was used to explain in depth how and where the increase would be spent.
Nothing was mentioned to insure the money was going to be spent on those projects
other than the mention of the super majority vote. Many question just how that will prevent the misuse or misdirection of funds as has happened in the past. As for the “super majority” idea providing any leverage against irresponsible use of our money…..not really. Historically the BOD has voted in lock step regarding some poor financial decisions.
I truly believe if you and the other board members produce a plan for a fund restricted only for deferred maintenance you would have everyone but a few on board with you. It’s not about the increase, it’s about the management of the money.
We’ve been property owners in HSV for over 18 years and my wife has been saying for at least 10 years the assessments should be higher. We’ve never been here full time. Up until 10 months ago we had homes in three HOA’s and one POA. We sold one in an HOA and still have the others. We’ve both been on an HOA BOD along with many city and state level board positions.
Best Regards,
Ken
Tucker Omohundro
10/16/2021 — 3:28 pm
George you have said it well. I wish so bad that the board could do just that. We can’t . The declaration is something that takes a vote of 2/3s of the members to change. As I am sure you are aware that is a big battle. Even upon success of such a vote it would go into effect in 2027. We as a board are listening. We and the task force have vetted over 300 ideas that were brought to us by the property owners. Many could not be done. Others as you would imagine shouldn’t be done. We are trying to do what passed all the legal and reasonable text that we felt was right. We have had many years of suggestions. You can imagine the lack of new ideas coming before us that have not already been vetted. Thanks for your comment. It was presented the way I wish all comments were made. Thanks again. Everything is going to be alright.
George Phillis
10/17/2021 — 1:42 am
Thanks Tucker. There are many of us who understand the difficulties as we’ve been down that road of management or participation on a BOD. The Idea I floated to you about a restricted dedicated reserve fund was actually instituted when my wife was on the BOD of an HOA in which we own a home. That was six years ago and it has functioned and served the owners quite well. I do understand there is a difference between what we can do here in HSV and the HOA I mentioned. It’s a shame the situation is as it is. There’s not an easy solution. Maybe property owners should take a deep breath, trust the BOD to keep their word and do the right thing. Vote for the assessment we need with the caveat we property owners) must keep a close eye on the business of the Village. In return the BOD must continue to be absolutely honest and forthcoming with information (good or bad) keeping property owners abreast of the business of HSV. It’s such a double edged sword.
Susan Posner
10/17/2021 — 8:32 am
Micromanaging mustn’t be reason homeowners move to and live in HSV, BOD with 5 quits and 2 removals, 3 GMs in 5 years isn’t conducive of trust, nor is suing for transparency conducive of honesty. Behavior has a pattern and it’s only natural resident property owners show concern over not just their assets, but their quality of life and that shouldn’t be a wing and a prayer gamble. Hope all get it together soon. Double edge sword still needs honing while aging is not friendly to long term future.
Susan Posner
10/16/2021 — 2:16 pm
“Bond” nope can’t anyway, board does not have “power of attorney” to purchase without all association owners signatures. The option presented is a “special assessment”, declaration is clear on the how and what of assessment increases. Board deeming it as not has no merit against the governing declaration which has not been amended. Annual increase requiring member vote means a vote each year when one is presented, any specific time frame outside an annual is a “special assessment” with roll back. There is no two tier in declaration which doesn’t differentiate, it states “living unit AND(not or) unit”. Declaration states no utilities are to be included in assessment so not sure where the “water meter” being used as a separating factor came from, certainly not declaration. Declaration is to be followed. Guarantee is this option will deter buyers and lower property values.(points to poorly run that mortgage companies will flag) Be a ghost town of rentals and revolving resales and no new roofs with amenities deteriorating faster than now(real reason for increase) Peace
George K (Ken) Phillis
10/16/2021 — 2:35 pm
I agree with Mr. Salas regarding the “Yes” signs being placed all over the Village yet he can only place his “No” sign in his yard. 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 a vote? 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”? 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. 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 they say 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. 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. Dire situations require dire actions. If the BOD is sincere in what they say then put together a plan with solid a mechanism to restrict the funds. If they do that they will not have a problem with raising the assessments.
Tucker Omohundro
10/16/2021 — 3:34 pm
I hope they can live with their statement. I am not being rude. I am being serious.
Kirk Denger
10/17/2021 — 12:27 am
Raising assessments across the table is unsustainable for the Thousandaires HSV was built upon and cannot survive without, Retirees receiving monthly Social Security savings, and a pittance for the rest. Maintaining Lakes, Golf, Public services and infrastructure with unlimited revenue to raise all property values is possible through current special assessment provisions. If the extra annual $6.7 million is specifically earmarked, the current $30-35,000,000 revenue will have considerable slush fund wiggle room for the BOD wish list. All HSV property values will rise, say 10%. The $1,000,000 properties will gain $100,000 in value and the $40,000 properties will gain $4,000, a $96,000 difference for paying equal assessments. NO voters see something wrong with this picture, and no it is not because of the Declarations, It is lack of leadership of the BOD to seriously propose an increase that is sustainable and all Property Owners will vote for.
Tucker Omohundro
10/17/2021 — 9:09 am
Kirk you have beat that horse to death. I would explain why this is a bad idea but it does not matter if it’s a good idea or a bad idea. No judge would rule that this is fair and reasonable. We are buying the same thing. The government taxes we pay are the only thing that people pay more than others for the same thing. If you want to live somewhere that’s income based the government offers that also. They have places in Hot Springs. It’s called government housing.
Kirk Denger
10/17/2021 — 12:46 pm
With all due respect Tucker, real estate property taxes are not income-based, they are property value-based. Government taxes that we pay are not “people pay more than others for the same thing” because property values are different. With your lack of understanding of the most basic principles, it further confirms the lack of serious investigation into HSV adopting an assessment structure that has successfully sustained civilization for thousands of years. It also confirms the narrow scope of the hand picked fratforce and BOD leadership.
Beating to death, are your words. Please do not try to assign them to me in the future again.
Michael Lane
10/17/2021 — 2:11 pm
still a little lite on details but i’ll be happy with the $34 estimate per month. Looks like it would take me and one of my neighbors to cover that cost with your first increase of our monthly dues. I can see why you wouldn’t want to do that. Pretty expensive.
Linda Anderson
10/18/2021 — 1:08 pm
Mr. Omohundro, sorry you chose not to answer my question about the $6.7 Mil shortfall. So let’s go to another question you can answer. Mr. Phillis recommended a restricted fund like a Special Assessment for Infrastructure. You stated that the Declarations prevented this because of a 2 /3′ s vote of members to change and 6-7 years to take effect Where is this stated in the Declarations ( page number and section )?
Tucker Omohundro
10/19/2021 — 5:06 pm
Linda your question about the 6.7 million dollar shortfall is available on the website. You go read it. I am not going to explain it to you. Now on the assessment he discussed. I may have misunderstood what he meant when I referred to the declarations. I read his question again. It doesn’t seem to be any different than a special assessment or a reserve fund for a certain thing. I don’t think a special assessment should be used for operating our village. We are putting together several reserve funds at the POA. Coreena is working on it in her spare time. Sorry that I misunderstood what he was saying. Thanks
George (Ken) Phillis
10/18/2021 — 3:27 pm
Tucker,
I attended the recent townhall meeting and submitted a 3×5 card as that was the procedure for anyone with questions. They did not get to my questions and unfortunately I was not able to ask you after the meeting because my wife’s 93 year old mother was visiting and we needed to get back to our home. Since the trash truck deal is a lease, how long is the lease? What is the cost to renew the lease? How much was the annual cost to repair the trucks we already had? The original cost of the lease was 1.2 million (at least that’s what was being stated) then there was the news of a $400,000 “overrun”. If this is true, how does a lease agreement/deal have a $400,000 overrun? Thank you in advance for any light you can shed on this trash truck lease deal.
Mark Oliver
10/20/2021 — 2:10 pm
Why does the board lie about what the west gate Mcdonalds is paying? The board has stated they start at 15 an hour and used this a justification for a “living wage”. Employees at the store confirmed that they make 11.
George (Ken) Phillis
10/21/2021 — 9:33 am
Is there anyone out there who has the answers to my questions? Here they are:
Since the trash truck deal is a lease, how long is the lease? What is the cost to renew the lease? How much was the annual cost to repair the trucks we already had? The original cost of the lease was 1.2 million (at least that’s what was being stated) then there was the news of a $400,000 “overrun”. If this is true, how does a lease agreement/deal have a $400,000 overrun? Thank you in advance for any light you can shed on this trash truck lease deal.