Petition to stop the madness
Bill Borg
Fellow homeowners:
There's no doubt: The current cost/fee structure of our homeowner's association is untenable. That's not meant to disparage or discredit those working hard on our behalves, but it's a simple fact. So, please read on, share your specific suggestions for change, and support a petition to our board.
High fees are causing unrest, sapping our abilities to make payments, providing rationale for delinquency (warranted or not), turning off prospective buyers (both resort and property), making it impossible to turn cash on rentals, and quite simply are not right. While we all hope for a sale as quickly as possible, and I appreciate and support some of the efforts to effect one, that's a parallel effort, unrelated to what we need to do to regain ownership of our association. In addition, any buyer is going to look hard at DSOs (days sales outstanding), and see that the TMA's high delinquency rate is much more than just a sign of the times—it is a sign of immense dissatisfaction with the current cost/benefit ratio, and it is trending the wrong way very quickly. The recent announced reduction is a fair start, but it's not nearly enough, and it reflects a line item approach rather than the "from scratch" view we need.
The posts you read about "insanity" and the need to "circle the wagons" are not the work of evil geniuses, but dead on, and reflective of what most of us are thinking. When people as rational as Stephanie McMahon start calling for a boycott, you know there's something horribly amiss. The TMA is a nonprofit organization at the service of its customers (read: us), but it has become a monster on our nickel and with virtually no transparency. We continue to ask the same questions, but there are no answers, and from a group bound to a fiduciary duty that is not acceptable. If you're like my family and me, you still love this amazing place, with or without the resort running, but you want to make it better and be around for the rebound.
While it feels good to rant, it is time to do something and stop the madness. Let's circle the wagons for real and force a change. I am offering to gather your thoughts and draft an online petition for your review and (hopeful) signature. The goal is 100 homeowner signatures. You are welcome to post back to this thread for all to see, or send me your comments privately (bill...@hotmail.com). Please be specific and constructive in your comments, whether positive or negative. In addition to creating a draft for your review, I will coordinate a live/call-in discussion if there's sufficient interest.
All of this must happen fast. The next board meeting is April 10, so please reply with your comments by Saturday, April 4. Perhaps the board is already way ahead of us, which is great, but let's provide a little extra encouragement. And if you're of a volunteering mind and want to serve on an ad hoc committee for a week or two to get this going, just let me know.
To start the conversation, here's some food for thought, based on your posts, other conversations, and my own ramblings. Please support/retort/tweak as you see fit:
BUA (benefited unit assessment). Goes away for all but condos and (maybe) townhomes. Reserves are distributed. Continue to maintain strict enforcement of upkeep, adherence to CCRs, etc. Take advantage of the BUA survey the TMA just published.
Services. Basic snow removal on streets and some level of security. Homeowners can contract for more deluxe versions of these, either back to TMA or with private enterprise. Present in detail back to homeowners what they're getting for their buck (e.g. 24/7, which roads, etc.). In addition, negotiate with various owners for access to certain facilities, trails, etc.
Budget. Target $750K-$1M, but force balanced budget based only on paid assessments (see below). This is down from 2009 approved budget of $2.5M. To my knowledge, the new budget of a month ago has not been published yet (guessing it's still close to $2M). And to date, no budget has been published in enough detail to be of much use to prying eyes.
Assessments. Target expense budget + 10%. Cut from current by 2/3 or more. Don't tie to valley assessments (these are ridiculous, unstable, and mainly out of our control). Assess from dirt on up to finished homes. Rough numbers (tbd based on expenses): Target $1200/yr for dirt up to, say, $1.50/sf/yr for built product (set a floor for the smaller units). This puts a cottage at $1,800/yr. I don't have access to the numbers, but I suspect this gets us in the ballpark of the budget. Grandfather in all current owners at new rates, but tier future phases to pay for putting in roads, pools, etc. for whole new neighborhoods.
Annual Payments. Require payment once/year (at a bare minimum, provide a heavy incentive for doing so). Build the budget based only on money in the door at the start of each year. If we do it right, new annual payment should be close to current quarterly payment. Consider terms for those who can prove extreme hardship. Collections become an annual process, not a daily one, with quick turnover to outside collections.
Employees and Contractors. Actual "employees" should be few and far between (perhaps only the Exec Dir). Pay is commensurate with experience, budget, and scope of responsibility. All the rest are "contractors," on their own for schedules, equipment, taxes, etc. The bid process occurs annually and is fully public, and every bill is available for review. Assist any former employees in starting their own businesses or helping them join new ones.
Volunteers. Many of you have already volunteered to help where needed. I'm in that same boat, and am comfortable we can set up a rotation and do an effective job in many areas.
Incremental Revenue. TMA continues to try to drive additional revenue, mainly by selling services back to the resort/receiver and homeowners, including snow removal from walks and roofs, housekeeping, security, monitoring, etc. This revenue is incremental to the plan, not fundamental, and it will go toward reserves and would-be-nice's like parks, etc. There's also revenue from net new payers (after fixed costs are met, these new assessments should be almost purely incremental). Also consider the role of the sales tax and whether that really has a place (how have the homeowners earned that?).
Collections. Continue to be relentless in pursuit. Deny all services to those not current. Get serious as a group of homeowners to put pressure on those not paying.
Transfer Fee. Suspend it for two years, then reassess (again, how have the homeowners earned this?).
If you've read this far, you're ready to help make a change. Your thoughts are encouraged.
Regards,
Bill Borg
P.S. In the interests of full disclosure, I have bought and sold several properties at the resort, and currently own two lots, a chalet, and a condo. My family and I (wife, two 11-year-old boys) moved here from southern CA and at one time lived at the resort, and we now live up the road in Lake Fork. We moved off the resort for a few reasons, but among them were the steep assessments. I also have been an employee of the resort contracted back to TSEF and Tamarack Academy (our school is still going strong, by the way). I have paid on time, every time on multiple properties since day one, but when I see the same numbers you do and watch my money going toward scrubbing the last half inch of snow off Discovery Drive at the end of March it's time to get off the couch.
DARYL RHEUARK
Matthew Castrigno
There is one idea that has not been floated and don't know enough about the lodge to know if is possible.
It seems the lodge owners suffer from most hurrendously unbalanced assessments. Is there some way to make the pool and the workout room a homeowner benefit and have everyone pay into it? This would also help rentals which in turn generates civic assessment revenue.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.32/2030 - Release Date: 03/30/09 08:40:00
Bill Borg
I've heard some positive signs re the pool and others--hopefully the board can address. My understanding is that the pool, tub, and workout room are part of the 60% owned by Hopkins, so it'd be their call, and hopefully too they'd consider opening up to private catering (like many associations do with their clubhouses).
And while I suppose I have "benefited" in the past as a condo owner/club member, it has always been bizarre to me that homeowners and outside rental managers not part of that could not use those facilities. I know it dates to handover from private to public lodge, but if an owner anywhere on the property is current on dues, they and their paying guests should have access, just as with any other association. Now if we could only dismantle the pool door that closes behind us.
Not sure either why somebody couldn't sell a limited number of annual social memberships as well. There are many locals just off resort property who are an important part of our community, and I think I know some who'd bite. The big stumbling block of course is the relationship between the TMA and the people who own all the different bits--I'm not in the know there, but I'd have to think there's room for discussion.
- Bill
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:34:54 -0600
To: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
From: mat...@castrigno.com
Subject: Re: Petition to stop the madness
Tim Flaherty
From: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Borg
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:46 PM
To: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Petition to stop the madness
Greg Paquette
Hell yes! That is one of the better ideas I’ve heard in a while. Here Here! Great Idea Mathew!
Greg O Paquette
Magnum One Real Estate Development
645 Front Street, Suite 305
San Diego, CA 92101
Rob Bennett
seriously lobby for
access to the pool and work-out facilities. Perhaps some of the
reserve can be
used to "buy in" to this. Perhaps this can be a way to "reward" the
owners who
have been paying full dues all along - might the hold-outs be
excluded, yet
removed from collections? Just a few of my thoughts.
I'd certainly be willing to pay a portion of my TMA to allow owners
and their
guest access to the pool. Let's fire the security squadron and fire up
the pool!
Rob Bennett
Bill Borg
Rob, is your suggestion that hold-outs be removed from collections? TMA has already been overly generous trying to work things out with people.
- Bill Borg
> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:24:39 -0700
> Subject: Re: Petition to stop the madness
Bill Borg
Tim,
Thanks for moving fast to get the financials out. Final separation of TMA from LLC is welcome and appreciated.
BUA survey is good—doesn't pull any punches. Let's dissolve the BUA, roll the most important bits into a single assessment for the community as a whole, and slash costs.
- Bill Borg
From: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Flaherty
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:11 PM
To: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Petition to stop the madness
Bill, In response to this message we are in the process of developing a TMA survey similar to the survey sent out last week regarding the BUA. I would like to say that if any homeowners have a specific question they would like included then please send it to in...@tmaidaho.com and I will add it to the menu of questions. This will be a great tool for the Board to review to make decisions. I have also been directed by the receiver to totally separate all TMA shared services from the LLC and this includes the website. Here is my problem. With this separation it requires more time than our web administrator estimated but he is working to get this completed asap. The new link of financials is coming with all the information that has been requested for full transparency as soon as he can get this completed.
Thanks,
Tim Flaherty
From: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Borg
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:46 PM
To: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Petition to stop the madness
Fellow homeowners:
There's no doubt: The current cost/fee structure of our homeowner's association is untenable. That's not meant to disparage or discredit those working hard on our behalves, but it's a simple fact. So, please read on, share your specific suggestions for change, and support a petition to our board.
<snip>
Kent Hellman
Why wait for the website when you can send the financials out via the tma contact list and the google group?
With the board meeting coming up we need the time to review and absorb what is in the financial statements before we can submit comments and questions. ANd since many of us have day jobs, we need even more time.
Anything you can do to help with this will be much appreciated!
Bev Hellman (on Kent's email)
From: bill...@hotmail.com
To: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: BUA survey
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:07:26 -0600
Tom
Why do they want you to do this and what's the signifiigance?
"I have also been directed by the receiver to totally separate all TMA
shared services from the LLC and this includes the website."
Tim Flaherty wrote:
> Bill, In response to this message we are in the process of developing
> a TMA survey similar to the survey sent out last week regarding the
> BUA. I would like to say that if any homeowners have a specific
> question they would like included then please send it to
> to make decisions. I have also been directed by the receiver to
> totally separate all TMA shared services from the LLC and this
> includes the website. Here is my problem. With this separation it
> requires more time than our web administrator estimated but he is
> working to get this completed asap. The new link of financials is
> coming with all the information that has been requested for full
> transparency as soon as he can get this completed.
> Thanks,
> Tim Flaherty
>
> *From:* Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Borg
> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2009 5:46 PM
> *To:* Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Petition to stop the madness
>
> Fellow homeowners:
>
> *There's no doubt: The current cost/fee structure of our homeowner's
> those working hard on our behalves, but it's a simple fact. So, please
> read on, share your specific suggestions for change, and support a
> High fees are causing unrest, sapping our abilities to make payments,
> providing rationale for delinquency (warranted or not), turning off
> prospective buyers (both resort and property), making it impossible to
> some of the efforts to effect one, that's a parallel effort, unrelated
> outstanding), and see that the TMA's high delinquency rate is much
> more than just a sign of the times—it is a sign of immense
> dissatisfaction with the current cost/benefit ratio, and it is
> trending the wrong way very quickly. The recent announced reduction is
> a fair start, but it's not nearly enough, and it reflects a line item
> approach rather than the "from scratch" view we need.
>
> The posts you read about "insanity" and the need to "circle the
> wagons" are not the work of evil geniuses, but dead on, and reflective
> of what most of us are thinking. When people as rational as Stephanie
> McMahon start calling for a boycott, you know there's something
> horribly amiss. The TMA is a nonprofit organization at the service of
> its customers (read: us), but it has become a monster on our nickel
> and with virtually no transparency. We continue to ask the same
> questions, but there are no answers, and from a group bound to a
> fiduciary duty that is not acceptable. If you're like my family and
> me, you still love this amazing place, with or without the resort
> running, but you want to make it better and be around for the rebound.
>
> While it feels good to rant, it is time to do something and stop the
> your comments privately (bill...@hotmail.com
> /constructive/ in your comments, whether positive or negative. In
> live/call-in discussion if there's sufficient interest.
>
> All of this must happen fast. The next board meeting is April 10, so
> little extra encouragement. And if you're of a volunteering mind and
> want to serve on an ad hoc committee for a week or two to get this
> going, just let me know.
>
> To start the conversation, here's some food for thought, based on your
> posts, other conversations, and my own ramblings. Please
> support/retort/tweak as you see fit:
>
> strict enforcement of upkeep, adherence to CCRs, etc. Take advantage
> of the BUA survey the TMA just published.
>
> to TMA or with private enterprise. Present in detail back to
> homeowners what they're getting for their buck (e.g. 24/7, which
> roads, etc.). In addition, negotiate with various owners for access to
> certain facilities, trails, etc.
>
> /paid/ assessments (see below). This is down from 2009 approved budget
> published yet (guessing it's still close to $2M). And to date, no
> budget has been published in enough detail to be of much use to prying
> eyes.
>
> and mainly out of our control). Assess from dirt on up to finished
> homes. Rough numbers (tbd based on expenses): Target $1200/yr for dirt
> up to, say, $1.50/sf/yr for built product (set a floor for the smaller
> units). This puts a cottage at $1,800/yr. I don't have access to the
> numbers, but I suspect this gets us in the ballpark of the budget.
> Grandfather in all current owners at new rates, but tier future phases
> to pay for putting in roads, pools, etc. for whole new neighborhoods.
>
> on money in the door at the start of each year. If we do it right, new
> annual payment should be close to current quarterly payment. Consider
> terms for those who can prove extreme hardship. Collections become an
> annual process, not a daily one, with quick turnover to outside
> collections.
>
> experience, budget, and scope of responsibility. All the rest are
> "contractors," on their own for schedules, equipment, taxes, etc. The
> bid process occurs annually and is fully public, and every bill is
> available for review. Assist any former employees in starting their
> own businesses or helping them join new ones.
>
> rotation and do an effective job in many areas.
>
> homeowners, including snow removal from walks and roofs, housekeeping,
> security, monitoring, etc. This revenue is incremental to the plan,
> not fundamental, and it will go toward reserves and would-be-nice's
> like parks, etc. There's also revenue from net new payers (after fixed
> costs are met, these new assessments should be almost purely
> incremental). Also consider the role of the sales tax and whether that
> really has a place (how have the homeowners earned that?).
>
> pressure on those not paying.
>
Tim Flaherty
protection of the TMA in the event the services could no longer be
offered.
Tim Flaherty
-----Original Message-----
From: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:09 PM
To: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
Rory Veal
Bill,
I fully support your effort to bring common sense to the “madness.”
I would like to volunteer for the “ad hoc” committee although I am now traveling on spring break and won’t be back until Sunday, April 5.
In regards the HOA dues and assessments it would be my recommendation that assessments directly reflect the amount of services provided and not be based on value at all. One of the comments you made speaks to this point; no one believes the current method is “fair” and this sense of inequity is in part a motive for not paying. One must answer this question: Why should a vacant lot which is assessed for $600K pay more than a vacant lot assessed for $400K? Aren’t they receiving exactly the same benefits? Why should a $5 Million, four bedroom home pay more than a $2 Million four bedroom home? This does not make sense and does not pass the test of “fairness.” However what does make sense is, regardless of type, once a property is built on, whether it is a cottage or a custom home, the level of “wear and tear” on HOA facilities increases and HOA involvement increases due to occupancy of the unit. The owners and “guests” of built properties frequent the resort more often, drive the roads, enjoy the street lighting, benefit from security and other services of the HOA. Use and resulting services are more a result of bedroom count than value or shear size. If a base municipal assessment of $200 per month was established on all platted property and a bedroom “sur-charge” of $25 per bedroom was assessed, then I believe we would have adequate revenue to provide the base level services that people need and the assessment would be “fair”. I would propose that the BUA be totally eliminated for all properties (except the Lodge which should have a separate HOA) and those services be handled by the individual property owners.
By comparison; Whitetail charges $225 per month for HOA regardless of type, value, built/un-built and Jug Mountain charges $110 flat fee per month and includes water and sewer! Both are private communities and provide snow plowing, common area landscaping. Whitetail provides some security (less than Tamarack) and common area lighting and beautiful common area landscaping whereas Jug Mountain does not have any security or common area lighting and minimal landscaping. I am in the process of obtaining the information from Spring Mountain Ranch.
Of course there are differences between the these communities, but it is clear and certain that other communities are providing quality environments at significantly less than we have experienced at Tamarack.
I look forward to serving on the ad-hoc committee with fellow community members.
Rory Veal
Associate Broker
Prudential Resort Property Realty
SUPPORT THE RETAIL TAX CREDIT INITIATIVE WWW.RETAILTAXCREDIT.COM
Rod Walz
Rory,
Great insight and good information. I favor the model that treats all built product equally and lot owners separately and equally within their own group.
Lot owners do not drive up TMA services. For built products, one problem with a per “room” method is that in reality, it is the Chalets, Cottages and Townhomes that get rented more (versus estate homes) which puts more demands historically, for example, on security and TMA customer service. Estate homes tend not to rent as readily, have less parking enforcement issues, etc.
The original concept behind the current assessment formula in plain English is: “if you can afford to pay more, you should”. Meaning: that your ability to build or purchase a higher property value indicates your ability to pay more, and according to this concept, you should. Sounds a lot like our Federal Tax system and for those of us that who have risked and worked hard building our success we know how much we love that system.
Having a flat assessment formula (everyone pays the same) for built products eliminates all kind of fairness issues since we all get the same benefit of the TMA services. The challenge to getting everyone on board is that depending on your “value” you may like the current model versus someone who doesn’t like their value. If we make this adjustment to a level assessment (TMA cost of services divided by homeowner units), the people with current lower values will pay more then now. People will leave the high ground quickly if they sense their fair share will go up and they will forget that, up to now, the higher paying people have been subsidizing the cost for services for the entire community.
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof from your system.
Newt
Regarding assessing lots differently than structures because of “wear and tear” considerations:
Where would construction sites fit in?
Newt Lesh
Rod Walz
We would need to address that. In the past, we assessed the building site based upon the construction costs. As a property was 25% complete, TMA would assess 25% of the normal assessment rate. I could see how we could do the same thing regardless of the formula (%of completion). Construction sites do burden the TMA services.
Newt
Thanks, Rod, for your quick reply.
Newt
Bill Borg
Rod,
Re flat assessment, if you can gain consensus on the simple "bare land vs. built product" model I'd be in full support. Sure there are arguments against it, but the less arbitrary the better, and it would be a major improvement over the current system.
Re your comment on fairness–If we make this adjustment to a level assessment (TMA cost of services divided by homeowner units), the people with current lower values will pay more than now—that's only an issue if there's not another major reduction in fees. Right now, the pie is simply way too big (by a factor of 3 or 4), no matter how you slice it (sorry, I know I've said that ad nauseam). We have to get to more "normal" assessments in the range of a few hundred bucks a month like Rory suggests, with a la carte options for premium services for those who want it. I'm looking forward to big changes now that the board has had another few weeks to sharpen their pencils, else we're going to maintain a downward spiral.
Re construction sites, % of completion can be hard to get, and on top of that you'd still be asking TMA to keep their noses in the loop. For simplicity, I'd keep works-in-progress in the bare land category until C of O. Yes, the sites take a little service, but not much compared to the traffic generated by the built products.
Cheers,
Bill
Beverly Hellman
BUA (benefited unit assessment). As a townhome owner, I'd like to see the BUA still be in effect in our neighborhood, but with the minimum services required to keep the neighborhood presentable and to maintain some level of reserves for things like roofs.
Services. I agree with your comments: Basic snow removal on streets, some level of security. I'd like to see at least some street lighting maintained. I'd like us to minimize the number of TMA employees and contract out for services with 3rd parties as much as possible. These providers can offer options for upgraded services to property and home owners who want to pay for them. I would definitely like to see what, specifically, we are paying for in services. Depending upon cost, I think I would like controlled access to the resort area with some level of patrolling. Again, homeowners could contract with more security as they deem necessary.
Not sure I understand your comment "...negotiate with various owners for access to certain facilities, trails, etc."
Budget. I don't know the date of the proposed budget that is on the website tonight,. And because there is no full-year budget vs actual for 2008, it's hard to tell what is reasonable. The 2009 budget shows expenses of $1.064m and revenues of $761 with a carryover of $250K (cash, I'm guessing) for a net loss of 53K.
I agree that we should force a balanced budget based only on paid assessments. And we should be able to see the details of the budget to make sure we are using our money wisely.
Assessments. I agree that we should do away with the current program where TMA assessments are based upon county valuations which are totally inequitable. I know lot owners are concerned about lpaying as much as built properties. We should look at services provided vs value to the property owners. But I do not care for the postings where people are saying that built property owners should pay more than land owners because there are so many rentals happening that are adding more wear and tear. At this point, no one can say that we are going to have lots of rental activity at Tamarack. I am not in any rental program and don't intend to be in one until the area can support rentals. I live out of state and am rarely there. Can't say that I would be adding much more wear and tear or requiring lots more services than owners of lots. If we are only paying for the minimal services needed to protect our investments, we all benefit equally.
Agree: Grandfather in all current owners at new rates, but tier future phases to pay for putting in roads, pools, etc. for whole new neighborhoods.
Annual Payments. I like your thoughts on this with once a year payments, balanced budget based upon collected payments. Work with homeowners who prove hardship, turnover to collections if no payment made or plan established.
Employees and Contractors. Absolutely agree with a plan to minimize TMA employees in favor of contracted services through open bidding process. We should do a make or buy evaluation on every service.
Not sure if / how we can assist any former employees in starting their own businesses or helping them join new ones.
Volunteers. Not sure what I can do living out-of-state and working full-time. But willing to explore how I could help in some way. I appreciate all who are doing their parts.
Incremental Revenue. If we do the other items - cut budget to the bone, contract out services, let homeowners who want more contract individually with service providers, etc, I don't see how we could sell services back to the resort for additinal income. In fact, I fear that supporting this could cause TMA to take on more expense with the hope of selling back services.
I don't understand your comment "... the role of the sales tax and whether that really has a place (how have the homeowners earned that?)."
Collections. Agree. None of us are happy paying a lot in this economy and with the current status of the resort. But we have to all contribute to protect our investments. If there are TMA services that apply to individual properties they could be withheld from owners who do not pay their assessements. However, if we go with a bare-bones budget I'm not sure there are those kinds of services that could be denied. It seems like only BUA not TMA services might be in that category.
Transfer Fee. Agree - Suspend it for two years, then reassess.
Bev Hellman
13 Goldenbench Ct.
From: bill...@hotmail.com
Rory Veal
Rod,
Thanks for your insight as a Board Member.
After reading your comments, I feel even more strongly that there should definitely be a flat fee for vacant lot owners regardless of size or assessed value, but also feel that (based on your comments) that improved properties do require more services and should pay an incremental amount. When we start trying to differentiate in terms of use/occupancy between a 3 bedroom estate home and a 3 bedroom chalet I think we are chasing the old “how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin” argument. Do we have any reliable data that shows that the average chalet really has a significant degree of higher occupancy? If we do, then we can use that data; otherwise we are just speculating. But can we both agree that use/occupancy is a better metric for improved property than value or size? Let’s start with that, and if we have any empirical data differentiating estate vs. chalet/cottage/TH use, then we can refine the system. Otherwise, although not perfect, the bedroom surcharge makes the most sense to me. Of course we would have to establish exactly what the base and surcharge amounts would be.
Warm Regards,
Rory Veal
Associate Broker
Prudential Resort Property Realty
SUPPORT THE RETAIL TAX CREDIT INITIATIVE WWW.RETAILTAXCREDIT.COM
Rory Veal
One of our many problems with the TMA assessments/collections, is that, because it is so complex it does require excessive management thus driving up administrative costs. One of the many advantages of a “flat rate” is that it is simple to administer. The same holds true for a per bedroom surcharge. I agree that a conversion from vacant to improved status should happen at one time, but would prefer to see it assessed from breaking ground. The logic for this is simple; once ground is broken there is a greatly increased chance of TMA involvement in terms of construction crews, mud on streets, security issues etc
Peter Lewis
Rory,
All objections regarding costs and assessments are really simple economic grievances. You sold and we bought these housing products with the full understanding how they were going to be assessed, to complain now is disingenuous. I do agree we must find a way to run this TMA for less money, lets simply concentrate on that imperative. To segue into “use” arguments is crazy, it’s not like we can put a toll bridge and truly monitor “use”. We have a mechanism, not perfect but agreed to in advance. More importantly, let’s find ways to drastically cut expenses, I have heard a lot of good ideas in this group and believe the board is trying to adopt changes accordingly. We must concentrate on what we can control right now, costs.
Peter Lewis
Rory Veal
Peter,
I agree that the most important issue is to drastically reduce the total costs of TMA operations.
For a very great number of reasons, I would respectfully disagree that methodology of assessments is irrelevant.
But to reiterate; reducing the overall cost of ownership through gross reductions in TMA costs is critical. I think these issues can run on parallel tracks.
Rory Veal
Associate Broker
Prudential Resort Property Realty
SUPPORT THE RETAIL TAX CREDIT INITIATIVE WWW.RETAILTAXCREDIT.COM
Peter Lewis
Rory,
We all agreed to the methodology a long time ago. It is a reasonable methodology, though not perfect. It is also an impartial third party that comes up with the valuation. For instance the county assessments are very high now relative to a distressed market, but all owners are in the same overvalued status. To rewrite fundamental methodology to assess properties 5 years into an association life is highly problematic and displays self interest on the part of any proponent to change. What we all want is low, much lower fees and I think we can get there especially if we act in concert on this and not try to divide and redistribute. Let’s get the costs down NOW. All of us can agree on that I believe, so that must be our focus.
Matthew Castrigno
All of the discussion is wonderful and am supportive of all that have taken the time to voice an opinion. However, to Peter's broader point we need to keep in mind that some the changes that have been discussed here require changes to the bylaws that will take a significant amount of time, albeit time that will be well spent. Reduction of expenses is a much more immediate need. While the efforts can on "parallel tracks" as you put it they do need to be identified as separate efforts so that the complications of structural changes do not slow down the need to expeditiously reduce expenses.
Matthew Castrigno
Idaho Resort Rentals, LLC
www.IdahoResortRentals.com
208-939-1066
866-939-1066 Toll Free
Peter Lewis
Matt,
You are right, I am trying to focus everyone on the most pressing issue, get the costs down. There is a lot of bad karma in suggesting some groups are paying an unfair share and others are receiving a benefit. The reality is we bought the methodology a long time ago and will cause considerable angst amongst owners to change. I personally would not like to see that debate.
There are several reasons our assessments are high:
1) We have too high of costs for the current operation of the resort
2) We have 250 owners supporting an infrastructure of a mature resort, we will gain economies of scale when it eventually grows. Just another 200 units will make a big difference on the general assessment.
3) We have an inordinately high percent of delinquency.
Let’s please focus on the one thing we know we can control item #1, with that accomplished we can hope the other two eventually find resolution.
Peter
Greg Paquette
Here! Here!
Greg O Paquette
Magnum One Real Estate Development
645 Front Street, Suite 305
San Diego, CA 92101
Rory Veal
You are both correct; the biggest problem is the operational costs of TMA. The Board must reduce these costs dramatically.
Another problem is delinquency. Part of that problem is the widespread feeling the current system, regardless of whether we “bought into it”, is inequitable. The system did not change. But what changed is the level of tolerance for an unreasonable method.
BUT LET ME SAY IT AGAIN, JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS MY POSITION; I AGREE – THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THE TOTAL COST.
thewhi...@hotmail.com
I have read the below post several times. I am very puzzled. Is it
you intent to bring divisiveness into the homeowner group?
"All objections regarding costs and assessments are really simple
economic
grievances. You sold and we bought these housing products with the
full
understanding how they were going to be assessed, to complain now is
disingenuous. I do agree we must find a way to run this TMA for less
money,
lets simply concentrate on that imperative. To segue into "use"
arguments
is crazy, it's not like we can put a toll bridge and truly monitor
"use".
We have a mechanism, not perfect but agreed to in advance. More
importantly, let's find ways to drastically cut expenses, I have heard
a lot
of good ideas in this group and believe the board is trying to adopt
changes
accordingly. We must concentrate on what we can control right now,
costs."
years, I have never had a glimpse of what I would consider to be a
character flaw. My Unabridged Webster's says of "disingenuous" is:
not candid, not straightforward, insincere. Syn. unfair, uncandid,
insincere, crafty. sly, cunning. This is not the Rory I know.
I can come to only four reasons why you would post such a public
assailment upon the character, the motives, of Rory Veal.
!. You have no idea what the word means.
2. You are weak in argument and thus "name-calling" is the last
resort to boost a weak argument.
3. You desire to polarize the Homeowner community.
4. You yourself lack character.
I have no idea which of the above. But I suggest that we all respect
the position, and the person, of anyone whether we agree with that
position or not!
Stephan White
>
> >----------
>
> >----------
>
> >----------
> >[mailto:Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Borg
> >Sent: Monday, March 30,
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter Lewis
My comments are intended to give my humble opinions what the TMA must
prioritize not to be disparaging to an individual. I have known Rory from
the beginning as I purchased in phase 1 and Whitewater. Rory is an
outstanding salesman, perhaps one of the best I have witnessed. I have the
greatest respect for his skills and enjoy his company. I like Matt realize
that to change the by-laws on a fundamental methodology of assessment will
take time and considerable debate amongst competing property owners and will
likely lead to more conflict than resolution. Rory like all others I have
read that want to change the method of assessment appear to have two
complaints: costs are too high in aggregate, and/or they take issue with
proportionality of their share.
The reason I used the word "disingenuous" is Rory sold all the different
product types and knew from the beginning and every subsequent phase what
the methodology would be according to all product offerings. Maybe I am
wrong and Rory wants to pay a higher proportional share for his properties.
If I am right, he is now in hindsight arguing his property should be
assessed differently, in effect less aggregately and proportionally. We are
all collectively bound together in large part due to Rory's superior skills.
Since he played a leading role in our destiny and had the responsibility to
explain and disclosure how our properties would be assessed it is a bit
ironic that he now desires to reshuffle the methodology so that his share
shrinks. Again maybe I am wrong and his arguments if implemented would
result in higher proportional assessments for his properties. If that is
the case and he is arguing against his self interest than I apologize. All
of us evaluate communal problems with our own self interest in mind. We are
bound by a methodology that would not be easy to change. I have been the
President of 3 associations all a fraction of the size of TMA. It is my
experience, changing by-laws that have an economic impact is difficult under
the best conditions. To rearrange the economic impacts amongst members
within the organization sounds like a monumental task, if not organizational
suicide. We have enough problems, lets concentrate on getting costs way
down. I believe the board is making an extraordinary effort and Rod's email
today may be the beginning of full autonomy from the LLC and transparency.
We have a lot of talented people in our membership, and numerous changes can
occur if we focus on items easily adopted by the board and membership. As
Rory made clear in his last posting, getting costs down is job one. I could
not agree more.
Respectfully,
Peter Lewis
thewhi...@hotmail.com
I accept it as, you did not intend to mean that Rory is: not straight
forward, or sly, or crafty, etc. Thank you!
I think it wise, when situations like we "homeowners" (both improved
and unimproved) find ourselves, to first find the common ground. From
my readings here, it appears that no one wants to keep the present
owner cost structure. If someone does, please raise your voice.
The divergence comes within three areas that I can see:
1. The desired level of service,
2. Proportionality of costs.
3. Method of valuation.
When dealing with about 250 folks that have made sizable investments
at Tamarack, some of whom have a mountain of money, some whom are on
the ragged edge of retaining ownership, it is not easy at all to come
to solution.
To retain that which is best for all at Tamarack, within the very
limited powers we as homeowners have, it would behoove us all to be
more encompassing in our creativeness.
I think it also wise to think beyond what has been. Just because TMA
was set-up to do something one way from the beginning, it does not
follow that we must stick with that method if that method is unwieldy
or patently unfair.
Jumping to #3, I find any attachment to the County Assessor's method
of valuation to be a very poor method. Should the person that has had
their property value decreased by appeal pay a lower TMA assessment
than the person next door with exactly the same structure? The State
Rules are often irrational.
As TMA is democratically organized, I would support a vote by the
members at large to change that what can be, should be, changed
whether easy or awkward. This includes By-Laws if that is what is
needed to accomplish that which the majority of members desire.
A very large side effect of an intelligent "reorganization" would be:
A. The potential Tamarack LLC bidders will be more interested in
Tamarack if the present owners act and behave as a rational body. If
the owners are perceived as a bunch of (not uncommon) loonies, that is
less than attractive.
B. Others would be more interested in becoming Tamarack homeowners if
they perceive that the Tamarack "HOA" is not typical. I happen to be
a member of three other HOAs, and given a choice, I wish I were not!
This is zero reflection upon TMA; however, most HOAs are perceived as
being run by people of limited achievement with nothing better to do
(like many small municipalities are also!).
Is anyone else interested in a polling all members formally on exactly
what each desires? The ballot would be extensive, and may require
polling more than once depending upon the results of the first
polling.
Stephan White
On Apr 7, 5:31 pm, "Peter Lewis" <pet...@nyla.cc> wrote:
> Dear Stephan,
>
> My comments are intended to give my humble opinions what the TMA must
> prioritize not to be disparaging to an individual. I have known Rory from
> the beginning as I purchased in phase 1 and Whitewater. Rory is an
> outstanding salesman, perhaps one of the best I have witnessed. I have the
> greatest respect for his skills and enjoy his company. I like Matt realize
> that to change the by-laws on a fundamental methodology of assessment will
> read that want to change the method of assessment appear to have two
> complaints: costs are too high in aggregate, and/or they take issue with
> proportionality of their share.
>
> The reason I used the word "disingenuous" is Rory sold all the different
> product types and knew from the beginning and every subsequent phase what
> the methodology would be according to all product offerings. Maybe I am
> wrong and Rory wants to pay a higher proportional share for his properties.
> If I am right, he is now in hindsight arguing his property should be
> assessed differently, in effect less aggregately and proportionally. We are
> all collectively bound together in large part due to Rory's superior skills.
> Since he played a leading role in our destiny and had the responsibility to
> explain and disclosure how our properties would be assessed it is a bit
> ironic that he now desires to reshuffle the methodology so that his share
> shrinks. Again maybe I am wrong and his arguments if implemented would
> result in higher proportional assessments for his properties. If that is
> the case and he is arguing against his self interest than I apologize. All
> of us evaluate communal problems with our own self interest in mind. We are
> bound by a methodology that would not be easy to change. I have been the
> President of 3 associations all a fraction of the size of TMA. It is my
> experience, changing by-laws that have an economic impact is difficult under
> suicide. We have enough problems, lets concentrate on getting costs way
> down. I believe the board is making an extraordinary effort and Rod's email
> today may be the beginning of full autonomy from the LLC and transparency.
> We have a lot of talented people in our membership, and numerous changes can
> occur if we focus on items easily adopted by the board and membership. As
> Rory made clear in his last posting, getting costs down is job one. I could
> not agree more.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Peter Lewis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
>
> [mailto:Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Ethan Budin
agree with various other posters that the overall expense burden of
the TMA is far more important than the relative allocation of those
costs; that tying costs to tax assessments is somewhat arbitrary, and
that nevertheless the process to make any change in the allocations
will be extraordinarily difficult. But I also think that an
allocation on the basis of relative benefit (so that undeveloped lots
pay practically nothing) is actually unfair. The pioneers who had
enough faith to build or buy built product did so with the reasonable
understanding that all the real estate owners would be pitching in for
some basic community services. As someone who owns an undeveloped lot
(only), I would rather not pull the rug out from under my neighbors.
There is a social contract involved in addition to the legal contract
we all signed. (This is not a commentary on those people who are in
financial distress and cannot make dues payments. Do what you have to
do to take care of yourselves and your families.)
For what it’s worth, I think one of the (many) reasons we are in the
current difficult situation is not because the fees on undeveloped
lots were set too high but rather that they were set too low. Many
other resort developments and homeowner associations do not
differentiate fees based on whether or not a property has been
developed because doing so provides a disincentive to build and
develop the community. Perhaps if the lots were always charged fees
as though they already had houses on them, there would have been (1)
fewer properties per owner, meaning fewer financially-stressed owners,
(2) a more moderate rate of growth for the resort, which would not
have encouraged the single massive Credit Suisse loan package under
which the resort now labors, (3) more building on the sold lots and
greater home density in some neighborhoods, (4) less real estate
burdening the TMA and, ultimately, (5) more TMA dues paid relative to
the acreage that the TMA is responsible to manage. Again, I am an
owner of an undeveloped lot (and no other Tamarack property) and I
admit that part of what made me comfortable making the purchase
decision was the knowledge that my assessment was not “full”. So I
would be arguing against my own interests if not for the fact that I
am also admitting it is a fool’s errand to try to change anything
about assessments right now.
The limited information that I have seen leads me to believe that the
TMA board has already done a massive amount of work cutting the
expense budget. I look forward to seeing the more detailed
information that has been promised, but if I read the budget correctly
they have already cut things to the point that assessments would
average less than $2500 annually per unit if not for the
delinquencies. They have done incredible work in a very difficult
situation and we should thank them. (Thank you.)
It seems to me that the issue that does not get enough discussion in
this group is what the TMA should be doing with respect to the
bankruptcy proceedings. I am no lawyer, but I took some time to
review my old TMA documents and the omnipotence of the Declarant (the
resort) in governing the TMA, with no attend responsibilities to the
TMA, is striking. In fact, Declarant (and, even if the Declarant has
liquidated, it looks like the power goes to previous equity holders of
Declarant!) has a veto on the ability of the TMA to liquidate or
change by-laws. Here we are looking at the possibility of a new owner
for the Declarant at some point within the next eighteen months, at
which point all the rules may change, and we are bickering about the
amount of money we have to pay in this eighteen-month period. We
should be figuring out how to control our own destiny beyond the
eighteen-month mark. Some key questions to ponder (and perhaps for an
attorney to answer):
- Do we have any negotiating leverage in this bankruptcy (to get
anything)? Are there ways we could increase our negotiating leverage?
- Do we have a snowball’s chance in hell of recovering any of the
moneys still owed by the Declarant?
- If not, might it be possible, through the BK process, to restructure
the relationship between the resort and the TMA in order to make it
more of an arms-length relationship?
- Given that the TMA, by its articles of incorporation, has certain
specific responsibilities, then if it runs out of money necessary to
perform, what actually happens?
- By my read, the TMA assessment obligations are recourse to the
property owners. Is that right and, if so, is it conceivable that a
new owner of the Declarant would push the TMA harder to collect
delinquent amounts (including interest charges) from owners directly,
with little regard for community relations? If I am still making
sense, wouldn’t it make sense for delinquent owners to work very hard
to cut payment plan deals with the TMA now, prior to a change? If
that happened en masse, we might even be able to make it through the
eighteen-month period with very small additional assessments…
It’s food for thought.
Sincerely,
Ethan Budin
Rory Veal
particularly personal part of the dialogue;
Yes, I fully acknowledge my awareness of how the assessment system was set
up from the beginning and would not/do not pretend ignorance. This existing
system is what was represented to every buyer including myself. I bought
property fully knowing how TMA dues would be calculated.
However, in the fullness of time most have realized that the current system
is seriously flawed and should be changed. Is this our absolute top priority
- no! Nonetheless, it is an issue that needs to be addressed for the long
term viability of the resort.
I am more than slightly offended by statements that my motivation is to gain
some unfair advantage over other property owners. That suggestion is simply
untrue. If you look at the recommendations that I have made, clearly those
who will experience the most relief are those with the most expensive estate
homes. For the record, I own a cottage and a lot - not an estate home.
My sincere hope is that the Board will take this crisis seriously and
implement a budget that reflects a dramatic reduction for everyone. After
that, I hope that they will address broader systemic changes that will
provide long term viability for the Association and the Resort.
SUPPORT THE RETAIL TAX CREDIT INITIATIVE WWW.RETAILTAXCREDIT.COM
Ethan Budin
I hope that you were not referring to my post when you wrote about
taking offense. (First of all, we have never met and I try very hard
only to offend the people I actually know.) My post was not meant to
point a finger at anyone. I understand the logic of all the different
positions, but I wanted to provide my own perspective and, I hoped,
get the dialogue moving in a different direction.
Ethan Budin
Judy Land
explained the BUA was that ALL exterior maintenance which would not (in my
point of view) exclude snow removal off the roofs or sewer pump stations
which the BUA did not budget for and are excluded. I was also told as a
buyer of a cottage that my dues would be approximately $150 to $300 per
month. The original documents also in very fine print in the very back of
the documents talked about a 2% transfer fee that the buyer would pay.
First it was almost impossible to find, you would have to read a thousand
page to get to and then the first board meeting that was change to the
seller, I opposed that change but was out voted. My point is that what was
originally set up and what was sold and what is implemented are not
necessarily the same. Those fees were also accepted because of the resort
and the belief that the integrity of the resort would be that the commercial
would be open by now and the 5% civic assessment would help reduce those
costs to the homeowner. Everything is different now, the Village Plaza and
the 50,000+ square feet of commercial were not delivered as scheduled, the
ski hill and other amenities and revenue sources are closed, everything is
different and need to be completed revamped. We need to set up a HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION that represents the homeowners and their wants and needs.
Hopefully with the mountain closed and Jim Spenst gone the homeowners will
feel like they can be heard. The system that Jim so adamantly supported may
have worked at other resorts I do not know but it has not been working here
and we need to revamp and revise in the present not based on the past.
I am so glad to see that people are expressing their opinions and like the
real world not all opinions are the same and this is how we can have a great
community still even after all the problems and being sabitazed by the
economy and other circumstances beyond our control.
JUDY LAND, Broker/Owner
TAMARACK & DONNELLY OFFICES
PO BOX 550; DONNELLY, IDAHO 83615
OFFICE: 208.325.9100
MOBILE: 208.315.0010
EFAX: 208.728.7777
Ju...@PrudentialResortPropertyRealty.com
www.PrudentialResortPropertyRealty.com
Beverly Hellman
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:07:30 -0700
> Subject: Re: Petition to stop the madness
Greg O. Paquette
From: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Borg
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:07 PM
To: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: BUA survey
Tim,
Thanks for moving fast to get the financials out. Final separation of TMA from LLC is welcome and appreciated.
BUA survey is good—doesn't pull any punches. Let's dissolve the BUA, roll the most important bits into a single assessment for the community as a whole, and slash costs.
- Bill Borg
From: Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim Flaherty
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:11 PM
To:
Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Petition to stop the madness
Bill, In response to this message we are in the process of developing a TMA survey similar to the survey sent out last week regarding the BUA. I would like to say that if any homeowners have a specific question they would like included then please send it to in...@tmaidaho.com and I will add it to the menu of questions. This will be a great tool for the Board to review to make decisions. I have also been directed by the receiver to totally separate all TMA shared services from the LLC and this includes the website. Here is my problem. With this separation it requires more time than our web administrator estimated but he is working to get this completed asap. The new link of financials is coming with all the information that has been requested for full transparency as soon as he can get this completed.
Thanks,
Tim Flaherty
From:
Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Borg
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:46 PM
To:
Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Petition to stop the
madness
Fellow homeowners:
There's no doubt: The current cost/fee structure of our homeowner's association is untenable. That's not meant to disparage or discredit those working hard on our behalves, but it's a simple fact. So, please read on, share your specific suggestions for change, and support a petition to our board.
<snip>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tamarack Homeowners" group.
To post to this group, send email to Tamarack-...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Tamarack-Homeow...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Tamarack-Homeowners?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---