HISID offers counter-proposal to Table Rock Landing lawsuit settlement offer

Friday, October 18, 2013

HOLIDAY ISLAND -- A month after receiving a six-point offer from Table Rock Landing Owners Association to settle its lawsuit against Holiday Island, the HISID Board convened a special meeting Thursday and approved counter-offers on five of the six points.

HISID attorney Matt Bishop summarized the lawsuit and started out by pointing out that HISID's Assessment of Benefits classifications of R-1, C-1, etc. are not "zoning," contrary to accusations the district had changed zoning.

"You have never zoned," he said. "These are covenants on the land."

Ken Brown challenged fellow commissioner Greg Davis to recuse from voting on the TRL settlement because county records show Davis owns a TRL time-share, which Davis denied, saying he had turned it back in more than a year ago. Later, during public comment, property owner and former commissioner Peter Putnam said he was "disappointed" that the board member (Davis) who accepted a quit-claimed deed valued at $15,000 as a gift from Holiday Island Development Corporation (owned by developer Tom Dees) refused to recuse himself. (Ed. note -- correction: This paraphrase was misattributed to David Blackford in our Oct. 18 Weekend print edition. Carroll County News apologizes for this error and any embarrassment it may have caused and will run a correction in the next print edition.) Davis did not recuse.

Point #1 of TRL's settlement offer was that TRL units would be assessed at a rate equal to an R-1 improved lot. This was discussed at length, with commissioners attempting to decide what should be the assessment amount on time-share units, which had been 10 times the amount of an R-1 assessment in the past, then were reduced to 2.23 times the 2011 R-1 rate by the 2011 Assessment of Benefits.

Based on calculations by Commissioner Linda Graves, which define how much of the time-share fee goes to assessments and to infrastructure vs. amenities, the board voted unanimously to waive late fees for 2012 and 2013 on advice of Bishop because the assessments are in a legal appeal, and then voted to charge TRL $17,000 per year in assessed benefits per unti from 2012 and going forward.

Point #2 of TRL's offer was that it would dismiss claims for punitive damages, refund of assessments paid prior to 2011 in excess of the R-1 rate, its claim for excess amenity charges to TRL property owners in 2012 and its attorney fees if HISID would pay $100,000. This was soundly rejected by the board, who approved unanimously a counter-offer of $10,000.

Point #3 calls for an agreed declaration that TRL owners are "Holiday Island property owners year-round and for all purposes." Commissioners objected that they know of no other time-share that gives its owners year-round privileges and that the phrase "for all purposes" leaves the door open to giving time-share owners votes. The board voted 4-1, Davis voting nay, to ask TRL to clarify what it means by "for all purposes."

Point #4 asks HISID to accept its assessment payments for 2011 and 2012 (each around $18,000) as payment in full and that the 2013 assessment will be paid at the R-1 rate. The 2012 assessment was addressed in Point #2, and for 2011, TRL owes around $129,000, of which $25,000 is penalties.

In consideration of the large amount of money, Graves suggested a compromise of TRL instead giving HISID 800 available nights of time-share use to market Holiday Island.

"They're not going to give us 800 nights in the time-shares," said Davis. "That's the craziest thing I've ever heard in my life.... If we're not willing to negotiate that down to the rate we're willing to collect for 2012 and 13, then we're wasting our time."

The board approved 4-1, Davis voting nay, to waive the $25,000 penalty on 2011 and then approved 4-1, again Davis voting nay, to ask TRL to come up with alternative means of paying the $104,000 balance.

Point #5 asks that the temporary restraining order against the district, not to tell time-share owners that they are not property owners, be made permanent. Bishop said no motion was needed because the issue was dealt with in Point #3.

Point #6 asks that the pending litigation be dismissed with prejudice, which means it cannot be sued again, except for the issue of voting rights, which can be sued again within a year.

Bishop said the plaintiff always has the right to dismiss without prejudice "whether you like it or not." The board voted 4-1, Davis voting nay, to leave it as is.

Bishop will present these counter-offers to the TRL attorneys.

Tom Dees

The board then allowed a lengthy public comment session, during which Dees, who sits on the TRL board, spoke for about 45 minutes, chiding the board for not coming to him to resolve the problems and avoid the lawsuits. He said major problems selling lots were exacerbated by HISID making the golf course public and told the board this lawsuit will probably cost $400,000." He warned the lawsuit could end up at the Supreme Court.

"So we've made our own mess, and we've got to clean it up. And it's going to be extremely difficult to do."

He ended by saying, "I can't save you. I could have five or six years ago."

(Ed. note: To hear the portion of the meeting containing Dees' comments, click here.)

Comments
View 7 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • LET IT HAPPEN

    -- Posted by property owner on Fri, Oct 18, 2013, at 9:21 PM
  • Why spend so much time trying to wrest the vote from Davis. His was the only opposition vote cast thru out the whole charade. This is not becoming of the people in their position. It just demonstrates exactly how childish and vindictive they are!

    J. Paul Brown

    Smokhous

    -- Posted by smokhous on Sat, Oct 19, 2013, at 7:46 AM
  • Smokhous

    Its real simple the boc does not want any opposition in their plan to ruin H.I.

    -- Posted by property owner on Sat, Oct 19, 2013, at 8:38 AM
  • NRHI

    I don't mean to butt in on J Paul, but thought I'd do a quick comment.

    You're right, increasing the AOBs will not make them more saleable.

    DECREASING the expenses/AOBs by cutting wasteful spending on stupid pet projects and heeding PROFESSIONAL advice on marketing lots will.

    One thing the settlement will apparently do is grant HISID the LEGAL authority to waive AOBs being accumulated (as required under AR law) on all lots that are held in HIISD title, or by the State of AR.

    One thing Dee's is 100% correct on is that HISID is NUTS to think it can sell real estate. (They've already screwed up the couple of lots the BOC did sell --- more lawsuits to defend). It takes a professional, who KNOWS how to market --- not a bunch of amateurs who think handing out coupons in Eureka will sell lots in HI.

    Again w/the $125K --- thank the BOC for that. Even Dee's has said, a number of times, that the whole issue could have been settled for little or nothing years ago (I believe at the first HISID Town hall meeting with the Bishoffs in attendance, and in agreement).

    ... See further comments under the CCNews "Settlement" article.

    -- Posted by Truth or Consequences on Sat, Oct 19, 2013, at 7:58 PM
  • Ok Folks! I guess I have been guilty of social climbing! Let me try to clear this up.

    Although I do agree with Mr. Bischoff on his theory about the past operation of HI, and I have been an advocate of his program, and I have met with the Bischoffs "one" time, I never meant to pretend we have a "close relationship"!

    Now by so stating, don't get the idea I would be opposed to a "close relationship" with Dave. I admire the courage and personal fortitude it required to go against the ruling class and force the BOC to abide by the State Statutes governing SIDs.

    As for Tom Dees, we have in the past, had a business relationship, (if you want to call me being a renter from Tom a business relationship). Yes, we have met and talked several times over the last few years. However, like Mr. Bischoff, I would not describe Tom and I as having a close relationship.

    As for me being privy to either man's ideas or plans, please get this from the source. Dave's number is listed as is Tom's, (HI Development).

    I am flattered being thought of as a 'close associate" of either man. But, unfortunately, that is really not the case.

    Thanks,

    J. Paul Brown

    Smokhous

    smokhous@yahoo.com

    -- Posted by smokhous on Sun, Oct 20, 2013, at 10:15 AM
  • It would be really nice if facts were reported, instead of slanted news.

    It's got to be embarrassing to the paper as well as to it's reporter to be publicly humiliated in a public meeting for not reporting facts, but slanted news.

    TRL case has been dragging on for close to 3 yrs. And the BOC states they want to settle in the best interest of both parties. Yet, it goes on, an on, an on.

    Pretty soon there's gona be nothing left but the 150+ reg. golfers to support HI. Hope they have deep pockets!

    Past and present BOC has undone in 3 yrs. what took 30 yrs. to build up. So it was not just the 'housing bubble', thats killing HI.

    What a bunch of dimwits.........

    -- Posted by CommonSense22 on Sun, Oct 20, 2013, at 10:32 PM
  • Using 'golf' terminology: The BOC is not up to Par!

    -- Posted by CommonSense22 on Sun, Oct 20, 2013, at 10:33 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: