POA assessment increase discussed
Organizers said that a meeting held on Monday evening at Lakepoint was not a complaint session.
“We want more to get yes voters and no voters and onthe-fence people together to find a solution to the financial problems that are plaguing our community,” Rick McInnes said. When he asked for people who voted no in the last election to stand, most of the 70 or 80 people in attendance stood.
An election to increase the monthly assessment by $11 for improved lots and $2 for unimproved lots failed by about 150 votes in November. A new proposal, raising improved lots by $13 and not raising unimproved lots, was approved by the board within two days of the previous vote. This second assessment election will run between now and Jan. 16.
A hand out on the table listed 12 reasons to vote against the increase. McInnes, acting as moderator, said it’s not about the $13, but it is about mismanagement of POA funds.
Several people took advantage of the meeting to announce their candidacy in the next Board of Directors election. The assessment election ends in mid January, but the board election takes place in April through May.
Marc Weinberg, who identified himself as a 30-year resident, said he has been discussing the situation with his lawyer but hasn’t heard back from her.
“In the past two years is when it has really gone south,” he said, “There’s been such a wedge thrown in here and this isn’t by accident. If you think it is, you
need to check yourself. It’s been done to us on purpose — the division between property owners — unimproved and improved owners.”
Another property owner suggested the focus should be on the timing of the election. One bullet point on the handout seemed to quote from the governing documents.
“Our covenants state, ‘Ninety days between any increase vote meetings.’”
After the meeting, McInnes said the quote came from Article IX, section 6 of the covenants. The section seems to refer to determining a quorum. The entire sentence reads, “If the required quorum is not forthcoming at any meeting, another meeting may be called, subject to the notice requirement set forth in Sections 4 and 5, and the required quorum at any such subsequent meeting shall be one-half of the required quorum at the preceding meeting, provided that no such subsequent meeting shall be held more than 90 days following the preceding meeting.”
Jim Parsons, chairman of the Bella Vista Patriots, asked members not to vote at all. He said that if the election did not draw a quorum (votes representing 50 percent of all lots in good standing), it would have the same impact as a no vote. Other members disagreed, and Parsons announced publicly that he was abandoning his “Don’t Vote” stand in favor of voting no within a few days of the meeting.
Ann Fry said she moved to Bella Vista because she has a large family and housing is less expensive than Bentonville. Her children attend Bentonville schools. She doesn’t believe her property values would be affected by an assessment increase.
An action plan is needed, one woman said. McInnes suggested everyone could take the handouts and use them to start conversations with neighbors. McInnes circulated maps and asked members who are willing to go door-to-door to mark their neighborhoods so there won’t be very much overlap.
D. Dittrich Newman, who helped organize the meeting, said she had asked POA COO Tom Judson for phone numbers and email addresses so “no” voters can contact other property owners, but she was not given the information. She was invited to observe, but wasn’t sure what that encompassed.