Debate HOA Land

Question: Should the HOA deed away its

Commonly Owned Property?

Currently, our HOA owns 3 easements and 1 retention basin. 

These easements were part of the original design when the development was planned so that there would be walkways to connect other parts of the neighborhood. The retention basin was something Provo City decided to put in the care of the HOA. 

Most of the HOA fees that we collect go into maintaining the retention basin and for insurance purposes.  The insurance covers all 84 units of Foothill Park HOA so that if anyone were to get hurt on these commonly owned properties and sue the HOA, it would help cover a portion of the cost of the lawsuit. The board feels that it would be in the interest of the residents if we deed these properties to the owners of homes adjacent to them as to minimize our liability.  In order for this to pass, it would require a 2/3rds affirmative vote from the homeowners. In an attempt to present a fair view for those making the decision of whether or not we should deed away these properties, we present here a “Pro and Con” list to help with this decision. 

CONS
(reasons one might be against deeding away HOA properties):

#1:  Several of us waited years for this subdivision to open, and bought our lots, and build our homes to be in a community as it was outlined in the master plan.  There was a model in the sales office that showed what this subdivision would look like.  We bought into the plan, and invested our time and money into that.  To take that away is not only saying that what we wanted doesn't matter, it is also very hard for those of us who paid top dollar for our land.  Several people want an HOA and want the common areas as outlined with trails to access other parts of the neighborhood, and so that our kids could play in a large common area.  We like the look of the open space.

#2:  We paid for our land cost per square foot.  It would not be fair to simply give extra land to those who live closest to the areas.  If we're giving land away, we want our fair share.

#3:  In speaking with several people from the city, there are some who don't even believe this is an option.  No one at the city could give us an answer as to if this was possible or not. 

#4:  $100/year is not a big deal.  If the HOA has really been able to collect as we heard they were, there should be plenty of money in the account to actually finish the trails, and make the common areas look good.  We prefer for pay that to keep what we were sold on.

PROS
(reasons one might be in favor of deeding away HOA properties):

#1:  Deeding away of these properties would result in the HOA having no more properties to take care of so we can eventually get rid of the $100 HOA fee.  This would also limit our liability as a whole.  Currently, if anyone gets hurt on any of the commonly owned properties, they can sue all 84 units within the HOA.  We have insurance that covers some of the cost, but not all of it.  If we can get these properties to become private properties, it would greatly reduce our liability.

#2: Two out of the three easements have already been landscaped and they are being taken care of.  They were never used by anyone in the neighborhood and serve no purpose to the community except as a liability.

 #3:  In any development in the city will require that certain property be set aside for drainage basins, roads, sidewalks, easements, etc. These do affect the original sales price of that property as well as the quality of the neighborhood and therein-future value. The property does have value and deeding it to a few specific homeowners might seem overly generous, even at the expense of other HOA members. However, the land is not being used, has little to no practical value for those not adjoining it, and yet represents investment, maintenance, replacement, and general liability. We believe that all members of the HOA will get a bargain if we encourage those adjoining to assume ownership and all responsibility.

#4:  This whole process has already been verified with the City of Provo.  Emily Ess spoke with Nathan Murray in the Provo City Planning division (NMurray@provo.utah.gov) and he was very positive about what the HOA wanted to do.  He also sent over the forms we would be required to fill out in order to amend the subdivision plat should we get the required 2/3rds vote.   Emily Ess has also spoken with Richard Hatfield ((801) 852-6783), the Storm Water Division Manager, specifically about the retention basin.  He was very agreeable in what the HOA wanted to do as long as it didn’t interfere with the city’s use of the retention basin.  The only problems we would encounter, according to the lawyer we consulted, would be if people within the HOA were to object.  That is why the voting documents have to be notarized and will be filed away in case of objections in the future.

#5:    The 4 homes that would split the retention basin also have to keep the basin as is.  They cannot change much to the existing plot of land for their own purpose.  Another option that Richard Hatfield mentioned is to deed the land to Provo Parks and Recreation and see if they would be willing to make it a picnic/park area.  We have not followed up with this option as of yet.

HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? SOMETHING TO SAY?

After reading the above arguments, please use the comments section to add anything you feel would be important for everyone to understand before reaching their decision.  We understand this is a sensitive issue, but please be respectful and courteous when making your points.  Thank you.