Congratulations Ruth, on your appointment as chairman of the POA board. It appears your plate is full to overflowing with the messes that the previous chairman left you.
Some of the topics that need attention and resolution are:
How did BV become a community of public amenities over the last few years when it had been a community of private amenities from inception, and without a vote of the property owners? And before "financial consideration" is quoted, consider that the balance sheet is, and always has been, back. A novel idea might be to ask the property owners if they would like private or public amenities and then act accordingly.
A recent decision by the POA board to vote the unsold lots held by the POA in upcoming elections (except for elections of board members) appears to be a "conflict of interest" but, as a minimum, is deemed unethical. The POA board members will most likely vote as a "block" but, if they voted individually, it is doubtful that most property owners would approve of giving each board member about 80 additional votes. With the historically low turnout of voters, these 700 votes could significantly influence elections -- an unethical situation.
The POA has initiated a study to determine the number of golf courses needed by the Bella Vista POA. It is believed that this should read "Golf Courses wanted by Bella Vista POA." And six golf courses is what the developers wanted. The developers knew that a village of 38,000 lots, even if all were buildable, could not support six golf courses. However, if this was to be a "golfing community" where a tee time could be obtained at almost any time, then six golf courses was the solution. Therefore, we have "assessments," to make up the "shortfall" in golf and all other amenities. Since property owners pay the assessments, all amenities should be "private" as the developers intended. And remember, the balance sheet is black!
Maybe you can reverse some of the decisions regarding Berksdale made by the previous board. Generally, members vote based on the data that they had been provided. If they realized that closing Berksdale was equal to throwing $7 million dollars of property owner assets in the trash, would the vote still have been unanimous for closing? In some instances, the data was in error or misleading.
Example: The POA reported that 55 percent of property owners were in favor of closing Berksdale. A non-POA survey with 319 respondents was conducted. Results: Just close Berks & Kings (24 -- 8 percent), Close Berks & Kings and Build New Course (21 -- 7 percent), Close Berksdale (67 -- 21 percent), Restore Berksdale to 18 (207 -- 65 percent). Seems the residents want Berksdale restored and that should be the direction of the POA. Proceed with restoration if the balance sheet is black. If red, ask property owners for direction.
There are a host of other things that need attention but enough is said for now.
Good Luck, Ruth, you are going to need it.
Bella VistaEditorial on 06/13/2018
Print Headline: Congratulations Ruth