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.
Why would anyone move into BVV if they weren't going to pay the assessment? The water is just the first step, the next step is a lien on the property or an outright lawsuit.
A lien on the property and/or legal proceedings due to non payment should be the normal course of action, and agree with it.
The issue everyone should be upset about is BVPOA using water meters as an enforcement tool... for late dues, for late sewer payments, and coming soon you will get your meter locked if your grass is over a certain height
A lien on the property and/or legal proceedings due to non payment should be the normal course of action, and agree with it.
The issue everyone should be upset about is BVPOA using water meters as an enforcement tool... for late dues, for late sewer payments, and coming soon you will get your meter locked if your grass is over a certain height
Ugh - this is one reason I left my last neighborhood which. I only had issues when on an extended trip in my rv. Each time I would get home there would be a notice about the grass and landscaping not being kept. I tried hiring someone to mow the grass, but they did more damage than anything else. They killed my two fruit trees and cut my vinyl siding several times.
The grass issue isn’t just with the POA. My sister-in-law lives locally and not in a POA. She found her neighbor in her yard with a ruler. The neighbor did call the city at one point. My sister-in-law had a service that cut it regularly.
A church I work with was threatened with city fines for not cutting a field quick enough.It was not visible from the road. It was lower than knee high.
I do agree overall that the POAs and governments have way to much authority to fine/punish someone for not adhering to things (especially minor stuff like grass being 0.5” to tall). However, unless we change the laws to restrict governmental bodies there are not many options.
Everyone there signed a contract with the POA. Fulfill your end of the bargain and you'll have no problems.
No one here signed any “contract”. Our POA is so large it’s governed by a Board of Directors. Rules and policies are adopted and ‘changed’ at will and without a majority vote. For example the policy to lock water meters for non POA payments was adopted by the POA board only about 4-years ago. No one here signed that “contract”.
So unless you live here in the POA, you are clueless and have no idea what you are talking about.
I know this is an older thread, but having just seen it and with everything going on with the POA at the moment I feel it's appropriate to bump this up to catch people's attention again.
As some of those who have posted in this thread will know, my wife and I are newcomers to Bella Vista, having moved here in April 2020. It took a lot of convincing on my wife's part to get me even to consider anywhere with any sort of HOA/POA, having heard so many horror stories about them in the past. I went through the restrictive covenants very carefully, multiple times, before feeling that this was a place where the POA couldn't get too big for its boots because of the exact content of those restrictions. Sure, I really don't like the idea of having to ask permission and pay a private organization for the supposed privilege of painting an exterior door a different color, but I felt I could live with that given the benefits of living in this beautiful area.
To those saying things such as "fulfill your side of the contract and you won't have any problems," I would ask you to go and read the documents in question, and then look at what the POA/ACC/Cooper seems to be doing. Yes, by buying a home here we are agreeing to follow POA rules - to the extent that the restrictive covenants grant powers to the POA or its agents to create such rules. They don't give the POA carte blanche to do anything its directors feel like doing. As discussed in another thread, the ACC is currently going after fences that it previously approved, and threatening legal action if residents park certain types of vehicle on their own property. Nowhere do the covenants grant the POA/ACC the power to make up such rules. So there's a case of having problems while keeping entirely within the bounds of the implied agreement.
The covenants give the POA powers to place a lien on a property or pursue legal action for non-payment of monthly assessments. Fine - There's your contract into which you enter by buying here. Nowhere do the covenants state that the POA may shut off your water supply for such non-payment. Nowhere in the paperwork we received to sign up for water service did it state that a condition of supplying water is that non-related POA dues must not be overdue. Unless one has read the POA policy manual in detail, that little piece of information is not revealed until receiving the first water bill and studying the small print on the back.
In anticipation of the argument that both are debts due to the POA so what's the difference, I would point out that in order to get water service established we were asked for employment information, social security numbers, and drivers license details, not to mention a notarized copy of the deed. The POA didn't want all of that to register us as property owners here, presumably because it has the power to place a lien on the property if assessments aren't paid. So why can't the POA's water section do that? Presumably because nowhere in the legal documents does it say that it can, hence why they want all the information and in some cases a deposit, just like setting up service anywhere else. I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to suggest to me that although these are both POA dealings, they are considered separate. Except that the POA then decided to make a one-way street so that POA assessments can be enforced by the water division. No contract, no agreement, just the POA making a declaration to that effect.
I too would like to know if there might be any state laws which prohibit this kind of behavior.
I'm not acquainted with anyone that received a full description of the 'rules' before they bought into this 'association'...
Like me, most found out the details after the fact. My RE agent only mentioned the low monthly fee... not the $175 title change fee or that if I set up a trust once I got settled and wanted to move the house into it... yep, another $175 POA fee for changing ownership...
I've lived in numerous places, and this place nickle and dimes you to death.
My RE agent only mentioned the low monthly fee... not the $175 title change fee or that if I set up a trust once I got settled and wanted to move the house into it... yep, another $175 POA fee for changing ownership...
I hadn't come across that one yet. An interesting question though: As it is the county which records the ownership of property, exactly what could the POA do about such a change? I can't see how it could prevent the transfer from taking place if you refuse to pay the $175 fee. So it stays under a different name in the POA records - So long as the assessments are paid, so what? Surely it's the county records which are the important legal documents?
Picking up on a comment from earlier:
Quote:
Doug McCash, the POA's attorney, explained: "The declaration (that formed the POA) states that anyone who owns a property (within the boundaries) is a member of the POA and has access to the amenities that the POA maintains. Water is one of the benefits for being a member of the POA. If you're not a member of the POA you don't have access to water. If you're not paying your assessments you're not really a member in good standing so you would not have access to any of the amenities"
Claiming that water supply is a membership benefit even though we pay for it entirely separately, and that therefore they can shut off the supply for unpaid assessments, raises a few other worrying possibilities.
Section 3.01 of the current POA policies book covers penalizing a member by suspension of membership privileges for certain things:
Quote:
Examples of circumstances that can lead to the suspension of membership privileges include, but are not
limited to:
1. The Member’s assessment payment is ninety days past due on any lot owned.
2. The Member owns property which has been determined by the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) to be in violation of the Declaration, Protective Covenants, or Association rules and regulations or Policies.
3. The Member is delinquent for any payments due to the Association.
4. The Member violates Association rules and regulations or Policies.
The POA's attorney is suggesting that water supply is a membership privilege, hence the abilitity to turn off water for unpaid assessments, per item #1. But if we accept that as true, then the claim is just as valid for the other items on that list.
Item #2. The protective covenants we know about, and they're really not that complicated to understand (except the parts which are somewhat vague). Nevertheless, under the "water is a membership benefit" doctrine that really does seem to suggest that the POA is able to shut off water over a dispute regarding some ACC matter which has nothing to do with water payments. And as I set out at length in the "white fences" thread, the ACC policy manual contains many things which it seems the ACC wants to control despite the restrictive covenants not granting the POA/ACC such powers.
Item #3. "Delinquent for any payments to the association" - So not just regular assessments then? Is this to become a case of the POA says you owe so many dollars for something or other, and while you're disputing it they'll shut off your water for not paying it?
Item #4. This really seems to be a catch-all item - The violation of "Association rules and regulations or Policies." If water is a "membership privilege" which can be withheld for the violation of any POA rule or mere policy, then it means that at some future date the POA could decide to have water turned off for almost anything. As an example, section 2.06 regarding member conduct includes the following:
Quote:
Every Member and guest shall treat all other Members, guests, visitors and the staff of the Association
with courtesy and respect. Insulting, lewd, vulgar, impolite or harassing conduct, language, and behavior
are expressly prohibited
I'm not one to employ vulgar language or resort to physical threats during any disagreement, but this goes as far as stating that "impolite conduct" is a violation of POA policy. Who exactly determines what that means? If you argue the facts with a POA employee, could that be taken as being impolite conduct?
"Sorry, you expressed disagreement with a POA employee which is impolite conduct and against POA policy, so your membership privileges will be suspended. That means we'll be turning off your water."
Clearly that would be ridiculous in the extreme, but if we accept that water service is a "membership privilege," then logically it could happen. The policies section sets out how one can appeal against suspension of benefits, but that opens another whole can of worms.
I certainly hope that at some point this position of regarding water service which we pay for separately (and it's not cheap either!) as being a "membership benefit" can be struck down.
Following up on this, a couple of days ago I was reading through the current POA policy manual (yes, I know, a glutton for punishment!), compiling a list of things which I believe to be questionable or ambiguous at best and outright wrong at worst, and happened to come across something which reminded me of this debate. It's not in the section about disconnection of water service, but is contained within part 7.05 which relates to the POA's use of "Assessments, Fees & Other Revenues." Just one simple line:
Quote:
I. GENERAL GUIDELINES
{.....}
2. The costs of water services will be covered by water service rates and fees.
So none of the monthly assessment fee goes toward operating the water service. Isn't that a rather strong argument to support the idea that water service cannot be a POA membership benefit, since it's paid for entirely separately with no subsidy from the monthly assessment?
Also, I missed this first time round, but upon re-reading this thread part of the POA attorney's comment just jumped out at me (my emphasis in bold added):
Quote:
Doug McCash, the POA's attorney, explained: "The declaration (that formed the POA) states that anyone who owns a property (within the boundaries) is a member of the POA and has access to the amenities that the POA maintains. Water is one of the benefits for being a member of the POA. If you're not a member of the POA you don't have access to water. If you're not paying your assessments you're not really a member in good standing so you would not have access to any of the amenities"
I call out Mr. McCash as being wrong on that highlighted point, since the POA can provide water service with Cooper's consent (as per the argument going on about the new city building on Forest Hills Blvd.).
Just as a side issue, I'm curious about the places on Cardinal Rd. and Robin Rd. which are not within the POA area but are completely surrounded by it. Does anyone know if they get water from the POA Water Dept. under an agreement with Cooper, or are they all on wells? (The latter would have to be pretty deep.)
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.
