Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm assuming that Bella Vista residents will have already received the postcard regarding the POA's "3 for 3" campaign. For those who didn't or who aren't in Bella Vista, details can be found here:
In summary, the POA is proposing a $3 per month assessment increase on improved lots, in return for which the amenity fees for golf, tennis etc. will remain fixed for the next 3 years. They are not proposing an increase in fees for unimproved lots. I would be interested in hearing others' opinions, but here's my take on this and on some of the POA's particular arguments and statements.
There was already a large increase in fees in 2020, which occurred just as my wife and I were purchasing our home here. I understand that the fees had remained unchanged for 19 years, but it was still a large increase percentage-wise. This proposed $3/mo. represents a more modest 8.1% increase and would take dues to $40/mo., but we certainly will not be voting in favor of it.
It seems as though the POA's only reason for wanting this increase is so that amenity fees can be kept unchanged for the next 3 years. The POA seems to be focusing on golf especially, stating that annual memberships have risen considerably, and pointing out how the $36 per annum increase will be more than offset for a couple with golf memberships and activity cards by a saving of $195 compared to if the amenity fees had to be increased. By the POA's own statistics, even with an increase in such memberships, these owners still represent a minority of lot/homeowners in Bella Vista. I don't want to annoy those who enjoy playing the game, but I would suggest that a couple wealthy enough to be paying $2960 per annum just to play golf (the POA's own figure) are unlikely to be impacted too much by having to pay an extra $195 each year. On the other hand those of us who are of lesser means, and couldn't afford that sort of money to play even if we wanted to, are to be expected to subsidize these activities for others by way of the assessment increase. Just on the surface this seems to be an unfair shift of the burden on the many of us who enjoy the peaceful lifestyle here but have no interest in participating in these expensive activities.
The POA's FAQ section on this campaign seems to be dodging around the answers to many of the questions listed. To take the ones which struck me immediately, first the question of why it's proposed to increase fees for improved lots but not for unimproved lots:
Quote:
This proposed increase in assessments is focused on keeping the amenity usage fees the same for three more years. Since improved property owners (those who live in Bella Vista) use the amenities far more than unimproved property owners, keeping the amenity usage fees the same primarily benefits improved property owners. While some unimproved lot owners use the amenities frequently, these are the exception, the majority of unimproved property owners live out of state and rarely use the amenities.
It may be true that many owners of empty lots live out of the area or out of state and use the facilities less, but they are already paying less now, and I understand that the 2020 increase didn't affect empty lots either. And the first sentence of that answer pretty much sums up the whole idea - To avoid having to increase the fees for optional activities.
Regarding amenity fees being fixed for the next 3 years:
Quote:
The current amenity usage fee structure was established in March of 2020. If the assessment increase is approved, the same amenity usage fee structure will be guaranteed until March 2026. In other words, the amenity usage fee structure will remain the same for six straight years. It is impossible to determine if there would be an increase in fees in 2026, but having the same fees for six years provides outstanding value to our membership.
Outstanding value only if you use those amenities. The POA wants everybody to pay more for amenities which, by the POA's own figures, are used by a minority of residents, albeit a fairly substantial minority.
On the issue of owners of empty lots being able to vote:
Quote:
The governing documents state that all members in good standing (improved lot owners and unimproved lot owners) are eligible to vote. Excluding unimproved lot owners from voting would make the vote invalid.
Quite so, according to the rules. But this answer seems to be completely skirting around the related question of why the fees for empty lots should not be increased too. The POA claims it's because the owners of such lots use the amenities less, which is quite likely so, but for such owners who do have lots simply to be able to use the amenities, there is absolutely no incentive to vote down the proposed increase when it will have no effect on their annual assessment but voting against would see them having to pay more for those amenities. Am I being overly cynical, or does this seem like a deliberate ploy by the POA to gain votes for the proposal from such members?
On the question of whether the POA will push for another increase in a few years:
Quote:
If the community approves the assessment increase, the governing documents prohibits another increase from taking place for at least three years. Having regular, yet small, increases in assessments every three years will allow the POA to continue to maintain the amenities we all love at a high level.
Yes, we're protected against any further increase for 3 years if this is approved, but the POA's answer seems to suggest that it fully intends to push for increases every 3 years from now on. We've seen people struggling with the craziness which has taken place over the last couple of years, and certainly in more recent months with inflation impacting the price of food, gasoline, etc. Even leaving aside the issues I mentioned above, I don't believe this would even be the right time to push for an 8.1% increase at all given the financial strain on those of us with more modest incomes. Again, those who can afford to pay around $3000/yr. for a couple to play golf are not going to have been hit anywhere near as badly by the inflation as those of us who have to be rather more careful on our spending on leisure pursuits.
And finally, on the subject of POA staff pay:
Quote:
Earlier this year, an extensive wage study was conducted on all positions to ensure the POA is compensating our employees within industry norms and in accordance with industry standards. These standards are based upon regional trends, experience, and education.
Exactly what "industry" norm is supposed to apply here? I thought the POA was supposed to be a non-profit organization for the benefit of all members, not some sort of money-making industrial enterprise. Certainly POA staff need to be paid reasonable amounts for their work, but it would be helpful if the POA would give us some examples of what it considers these "industry" norms to be. Didn't I read somewhere that the big chief of the POA gets paid over $250,000 per year?
Maybe some might think I'm being too harsh over an extra $36 per year, and that certainly isn't going to break the bank, but it's the principles which seem to be behind the POA's drive for the increase which I consider to be undesirable, not to mention the implied intent to try to force increases through every 3 years from now on. Is the aim to end up with Bella Vista fees being $100, $200, or more per month, as in some other communities?
I moved to BV back in 2021. I don't use the golf courses, but I do use the fitness facilities and I may use the gun range. Where I moved from the HOA tripled in the last five years. The fees at BV are a fraction of what I was paying, but they did a lot more. Those included water and bad wifi. I don't expect BV to pay for these, but they should be doing more than what they are doing. I don't know how many homes are in BV, but at $37 a month that should be a huge amount of money. I especially don't agree with the salary of the top BV person.
If the unimproved lot owners have access to the amenities, they certainly need to pay the extra $36 anually. Might not do a bit of good, but if I was a homeowner, I'd be raising all kinds of hell over that.
That's the kind of stupidity that makes all HOAs look bad.
I don't know how many homes are in BV, but at $37 a month that should be a huge amount of money.
I believe there are something in the region of 39,000 lots within the POA area. I'm not sure what proportion have homes on them, but according to the POA's financial reports they receive over $900,000 per month in assessments at the current levels of $37 for improved lots and $16 for empty lots. This isn't a small POA with just a few dozen homes; it's a large organization receiving over $10 million per year in the basic assessments alone.
If the unimproved lot owners have access to the amenities, they certainly need to pay the extra $36 anually. Might not do a bit of good, but if I was a homeowner, I'd be raising all kinds of hell over that.
That's the kind of stupidity that makes all HOAs look bad.
If the owner of the unimproved lot has it mainly where they can have access to the amenities then they should pay more also. But if you own a lot like I do just to keep the neighbors away they (I) should not.
That's a very good point. Quite a few people on our lane own the lot on which their home stands plus either one adjacent lot or the lot either side. Clearly anybody in that situation isn't going to be using the amenities more than if they just owned the single lot, but I'm guessing the POA's position would be that if they lost that $16/mo. income from those extra lots then the assessment for all other lots would have to be increased to compensate.
Be grateful for your current assessments. In HSV increases were approved by voters last year, our improved lots increased from $69 to $90 per month. Unimproved lots increased from $39 to $43 per month and here are the future increases.
Be grateful for your current assessments. In HSV increases were approved by voters last year, our improved lots increased from $69 to $90 per month. Unimproved lots increased from $39 to $43 per month and here are the future increases.
I must also say I did vote for the increases due to infrastructure needs. Maintenance was being deferred for too many years.
Isn't the infrastructure maintenance the town of Bella Vista's responsibility? If yes then the POA dues are mainly for the amenities like the golf courses. I know a lot of people play golf (use to myself), but why should the non-golfers pay for something they don't use.
As I understand it...
Back before the city was incorporated, the POA also maintained the roads, fire, police and other services the City now collects taxes to maintain... That was the basis for the split assessment fee since it was postulated that vacant lots didn't require those services and thus shouldn't have to pay for them... sounds reasonable? yes?
When the city came along and took over most services, the monthly fees didn't go down, so the POA got more money for doing nothing... They kept the water company as a way to enforce payments of other assessments, like permit fees to paint your deck or fence your property...
In 2020 when the first fee increase proposal was voted on it was defeated... but not the end of the story though... the POA decided to have a re-vote but this time THEY decided the vacant property owners wouldn't have any fee increase but could still vote. Surprise, surprise that vote passed... THIS needs to change - IMO either all property owners pay or don't get a vote...
Another factor that might have an impact is that multiple lots are owned by investment companies.
What if they have 1000 lots but don't have to pay any additional assessment... how do you think they will vote their 1000 shares?
Another thing, I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think I read it in the docs at closing... Cooper has proxy voting rights for all unimproved lots owned by remote owners (IIRC if they signed off on it)... in addition to the "reserve"of lots Cooper owns outright.
I have no idea how many that is, but... how do you think they will vote those lots? (especially the ones they own... does Peter really pay Paul or is it just an accounting offset?)
I would like to see a complete reorganization with the various POA entities losing most of their power over homeowners and sticking to management of amenities... if it cost more to use them then so be it.
As for the homeowners that own adjacent lots for buffer zone purposes, POA computers can easily identify who you are and flag you for voting purposes... since you don't use any additional amenities, you also shouldn't get extra votes...
As I understand it...
Back before the city was incorporated, the POA also maintained the roads, fire, police and other services the City now collects taxes to maintain...
I'm not sure about the roads - No doubt long-term residents will know. I believe policing was provided by a specific division of the Benton County Sheriff's office though. I have police radio frequency listings which indicate there once existed a separate Bella Vista section. I can't see how the POA could have police powers anyway, unless sworn in as deputies.
Quote:
They kept the water company as a way to enforce payments of other assessments, like permit fees to paint your deck or fence your property...
It sure seems that way. As I understand it, the ACC was created as a separate entity about 30 years ago. If you look at your restrictive covenants you'll find that the only amendment was added in 1993 to allow the charging of fees for ACC matters.
Quote:
In 2020 when the first fee increase proposal was voted on it was defeated... but not the end of the story though... the POA decided to have a re-vote but this time THEY decided the vacant property owners wouldn't have any fee increase but could still vote.
Now that part, I didn't know. But as I suggested earlier, knowing that certainly makes me believe that this latest proposal which involves hiking the fees only for improved lots is indeed a ploy to get "yes" votes from owners of empty lots.
Quote:
Another factor that might have an impact is that multiple lots are owned by investment companies.
What if they have 1000 lots but don't have to pay any additional assessment... how do you think they will vote their 1000 shares?
Another excellent point.
Quote:
Another thing, I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think I read it in the docs at closing... Cooper has proxy voting rights for all unimproved lots owned by remote owners (IIRC if they signed off on it)...
Haven't heard about that.
Quote:
in addition to the "reserve"of lots Cooper owns outright.
Article III refers to two classes for voting rights: Class B for the developer and class A for everybody else, but it actually says that the developer can cast 10 votes for each lot owned. The POA isn't allowed votes on lots it owns though.
Finally, in my afternoon's email is a notice from the POA indicating that there is going to be a meeting at the Lakepoint Restaurant at 6 p.m. on October 4. I think I'll attend.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
