Board Changes Mind On Assessment Increase

— The Property Owners Association board did an abrupt about face Thursday and rescinded last week’s decision to ask members for an assessment increase.

Last week the board agreed to ask members to raise the assessments so owners of developed property would pay an additional $10 a month — making their assessment fee $34.

Owners of undeveloped lots, a larger number overall, would remain at $16 a month. According to the association’s governing documents, all assessment increases must be approved by the membership.

During the open forum Thursday, member James Heath said the proposed assessment plan was discriminatory.

Owners of improved lots would pay double what owners of unimproved lots did and receive nothing extra for their higher payment, he said.

The two levels of assessments were introduced in 2001, the last time an increase passed. At that time, the two level system was said to be justified by the cost of providing municipal services to the residents.

The owners of unimproved lots didn’t live in Bella Vista so they didn’t benefit from improved police, fire and streets. In 2007, Bella Vista was incorporated and eventually took over municipal services.

The board already heard the same type of comments from other members, said Director Charlie Teal. He introduced the motion to reconsider the increase, saying the board may have been too hasty when it was passed.

With a forum scheduled for next week, Teal said he expects to hear more about assessments from the membership before the issue is reconsidered. Plans to increase user fees and cut expenses might be part of the complete financial package, he said.

Earlier the board planned to put the assessment increase on the regular spring ballot for seats on the board, but that ballot was also in question Thursday. A representative of the Election Committee announced only two members filed to run for the three open seats.

In the past, the filing period was extended if candidates didn’t file on time. This year the committee recommended the end of the filing period, Jan. 4, be final.

It’s a unique situation, said Chastity Fitro, attorney. In the past, there has always been more candidates than seats. She suggested the Election Committee study the issue and decide how to proceed. There are several alternatives, she said, including an online election. Or, she said, the board could skip the election and appoint the two candidates along with a third person for the vacant seat.

“That’s not contrary to the intent and the spirit of the governing documents,” she said.

Upcoming Events