Town Crier Articles

Amended NTRA Documents – Why Vote “FOR"

Posted on October 1, 2022 6:30 AM by Everett Lunsford, Treasurer

Categories: NTRA Business

The basic reasons for updating our governing documents are:

Virginia law has changed since 2005 when the development of New Town began. The developer’s governing documents no longer comply with current law.
The current documents are very hard to follow and understand. Depending on your neighborhood, you have to read several supplemental declarations and determine which pieces of the declarations apply to you. The revised documents give you one shorter and simpler supplemental declaration that applies to your neighborhood.
There are errors in the current documents – various houses, services and streets were left out of the documents. The amended documents include all of the New Town Residential Association.
Items 1-3 have wasted much time and have caused significant legal expense in researching and responding to questions about the existing documents. The amended documents will reduce this expense and administrative workload for our community manager. We have important operational priorities to focus on instead.

A NO vote, or not voting (which is the same as voting NO), means the problems caused by the current documents continue.

One of the most emotional issues has been landscaping fenced yards. The current Supplemental Declarations clearly state that certain landscaping services will not be provided to fenced yards. A NO vote means that policy continues.

Although the Developer Board and Town Management provided landscape services to fenced yards, it was done in violation of New Town’s governing documents. When searching for a new management company, all the candidates expected New Town Residential to be following its documents. A quality professional managing agent is going to “follow the documents” and advise the Board accordingly.

Papers and emails are being circulated throughout the community claiming the revised documents do not guarantee landscaping. The revised HOA documents DO provide for landscaping services; but they do not spell out the specific details of those services. Each year’s services will be identified as part of the budget process. You will know what to expect. (Please recall that our existing documents only speak to mowing/edging of grass and pruning of shrubs and bushes, so no additional landscape services are guaranteed today either.)

The term “landscape services” was used to provide flexibility for adjusting the services based on needs, cost and contractor availability. A detailed list in the governing documents becomes a “must provide” requirement regardless of cost. We need to think about the future – what if we install more warm weather grasses or change the configuration of our Common Area green spaces? Lessons from the current landscape negotiations are that available services vary between contractors, and options like servicing fenced yards usually come with conditions. The Board has to balance what some residents want against whether the preferred contractors will do the services, whether any conditions are acceptable, and the costs are affordable for our membership. This revision gives any future Board the flexibility to control costs and HOA assessments. Our proposal is not a power grab or something nefarious. We are protecting homeowner interests and your pocketbooks.

Another claim recently circulated in an anonymous letter alleges the NTRA Board removed the BMP (retention ponds) reference from the amended Village Walk Supplemental Declaration in order to make all of NTRA responsible for the BMPs. This is simply not true! The reference was removed from the new documents because no one has found or provided documentation of NTRA/Village Walk’s legal responsibility for those BMPs.

The Board has recently sent a letter to all NTRA owners about this situation. To summarize, there are no documents recorded with James City County that require the Association to pay future maintenance costs for the stormwater retention ponds near Village Walk. These maintenance costs have not been shown to be a New Town Residential responsibility but are the responsibility of the developers/owners of this land. Scary cost figures for repairs to the walls of these ponds have been floated anonymously as well. Again, repairs are fully the responsibility of the owners and their James City County bonds will not be released until this work is done satisfactorily.

This is another example of how the errors and confusing language in our existing developer-created governing documents could serve the developer’s interests and have increased the Association’s legal costs. As the Association’s Treasurer I can advise you that the barrage of unsolicited emails and letters to owners affect your homeowner dues because of the unanticipated legal costs to review and reply to these owners.

Please – let’s stop the confusion and unnecessary expense – VOTE FOR the amended documents.

Comments

Comment By: Tom Dawkins

Posted on October 8, 2022 11:14 AM

Everett,

The Board has said it has no choice but to follow the governing documents – the covenant between the NTRA and its homeowner members. The current documents promise homeowners a minimum level of landscape services, whereas the proposed documents provide no guarantee of any landscape services at all - rather, they leave it to the Board’s discretion based on what can be negotiated in the landscape contract. This shift in mission is putting the cart before the horse. While I believe the current Board fully intends to provide landscape services even inside fences (potentially with additional fees), there is no way to know what a future Board might do. Without some level of guarantee, property values could be negatively impacted since New Town could no longer be considered a maintenance-free community.

Also, it's important to note that homeowners are being asked to vote on the governing documents – not on the anticipated actions of the current or future Board.

In addition, a “take it or leave it” landscape opt-out policy has been added to the governing documents. A homeowner will be prohibited from opting out of just pruning, for example. How is this helpful to anyone? I have proposed a simple solution to this long-term issue that would involve $0 administrative expense and be beneficial to both homeowners and the landscape contractor but, despite repeated attempts, the Board has never seriously considered it. Why not?

The Board is taking this same “take it or leave it” attitude with the governing documents. While I agree they need to be streamlined and rewritten to reflect homeowner control, they need to be rewritten in a way that clarifies and preserves homeowner rights.

AUTHOR's REPLY:
Tom, the NTRA community has to ultimately trust its Board, whose members are elected by the community. Assuming the procedures for amendment are followed, most of NTRA's document and bylaw policies can be changed by future Boards. As explained in my article, the current Board chose to write the proposed documents for flexibility, especially with the cost pressures we know the community is facing. And yes, the Board is trying to negotiate a new landscape contract that provides an option for mowing fenced yards - if the new documents are approved.

Your 'take it or leave it" opt-out comments -- the decision for all or nothing opt-out is based on practical issues of working with landscape contractors geared to service a 600 home community. Your proposed solution, which we have read, provides for changing the services to a lot potentially every week with no notice to the contractor. That is a management issue for the contractors, and is not a service level being negotiated. It is something a small contractor servicing a few homes could handle, but not something easily done by a contractor planning staffing and work across 600 homes. We might find someone that would provide that level of service, but I doubt the majority of New Town Residential really wants to pay for it.

We understand that past Boards allowed Town Management to accommodate varying levels of service for some owners. That is how the situation became unmanageable. Unfortunately, they did it completely in violation of the association documents; for example, your lot is one of 66 in Charlotte Park where landscape services are totally missing from the current supplemental declarations. That is why the documents need to be changed. Otherwise the "anticipated actions" of another Board - as you say "there is no telling what a future Board might do" - could provide even less service under our current documents. They could decide to follow these current documents strictly and not provide any landscape service to these 66 lots... The Board is not demonstrating a "take it or leave it" attitude - rather our approach is "we gave this a lot of thought and consideration, and are following the advice and experience of experts".

Last Edited: 10/11/2022 at 09:59 AM

Comment By: Terry Hancock

Posted on October 11, 2022 7:07 PM

Please share your list of experts. Thanks,
Terry

REPLY:
The Board researched landscape management practices including opt out policies through the Community Association Institute's resources, talking to other HOAs, and discussing alternatives with our 2021 consultant Bill Swift. We also discussed opt out options with Chesapeake Bay Management, Virginia Lawn and Landscape, and more recently with our 2023 landscape contract final bidders.

Last Edited: 10/13/2022 at 10:01 AM