Unlimited FREE Buyer Traffic On Autopilot Fully-automated software for SET & FORGET traffic 24/7 Ultra-fast SAME DAY results 100% free traffic and it always will be Click on link ----> https://instantrealtraffic.com/go

Hey there, Natalie from Social Buzzzy , your guide in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've stumbled upon something extraordinary for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine unveils a revolutionary service that propels your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's a breeze: - Concentrate on crafting unforgettable content. - Extremely affordable at a mere $36/month. - Utterly reliable (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and the ideal Instagram companion. I've experienced outstanding results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence this instant: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster To your success, Natalie

I'm Heath, Founder of CaseConnector.io. We're experiencing an overflow of cases from our Client Acquisition Program and see a potential fit with your firm's expertise. Let's discuss further? Reach out at https://caseconnectors.com or my personal email heathd@caseconnector.io Best, Heath Find me on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/heathdonald

The Virginia Airport Operators Council (VAOC) Board of Directors authorized this position paper on SB354 on behalf of its membership, comprised of representatives from Virginia’s 66 public-use airports. BACKGROUND: The VAOC believes that an airport serves its community best when it operates as a responsible community partner. Since most public airports in Virginia are either owned by cities and counties (i.e., “airport sponsors”), or have representation by city or county officials on an advisory board or commission that oversees the airport, it is in every locality’s best interest to ensure its comprehensive planning, zoning, and land use matters are a collaborative process that involve airport personnel, real estate professionals, developers, and government officials. By ensuring that key stakeholders are represented, a community can make informed decisions about land-use decisions that affect its constituents and the capability of its local aviation infrastructure. We are pleased that Virginia code already acknowledges the unique protections that airports require by its mandate for safety zoning: “Every locality (i) in whose jurisdiction a licensed airport or United States government or military air facility is located or (ii) over whose jurisdiction the approach slopes and other safety zones of a licensed airport, including United States government or military air facility extend shall, by ordinance, provide for the regulation of the height of structures and natural growth for the purpose of protecting the safety of air navigation and the public investment in air navigation facilities.” (ref: § 15.2-2294. Airport safety zoning). Furthermore, consideration of surrounding land use compatibility is a requirement for airport sponsors that receive federal assistance under Grant Assurance #21, Compatible Land Use: “It will take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft…” POSITION: The VAOC is concerned that the language of SB354 appears to restrict a locality’s ability to establish or maintain mandatory real estate disclosures - an industry best practice - to inform citizens about airport noise, environmental impacts, or proximity to aircraft flight paths. Our position is that any legislation that addresses mandatory real estate disclosures should not interfere with a locality’s legal authority to prescribe measures that responsibly inform citizens about airport operations, promote compatible land use, and achieve compliance with federal Grant Assurance #21. Furthermore, we support the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority’s (MWAA) proposed amendment to this legislation.

“Please support the MWAA amendment to SB354” Dulles International Airport is a regional economic engine and is responsible for over 28,000 jobs in and around the airport complex with unrestricted 24-hour operations. The Committee for Dulles has concerns with the impact of SB354 as written and strongly encourage including the proposed MWAA amendment to protect the airport and future residents. Airport noise changes with active runways and aircraft which may not be active when prospective residents view properties and make decisions. Future residents deserve appropriate notifications regarding potential airport noise levels. Transparency is good business, good governance and in the best interest of the Dulles Region. Thank you, Scott York Executive Director - Committee for Dulles scott.york@committeefordulles.com (The Committee for Dulles was established in 1966 and has been a cornerstone in establishing great community relations with Dulles International Airport)

The Virginia Airport Operators Council (VAOC) Board of Directors authorized this position paper on SB354 and HB467 on behalf of its membership, comprised of representatives from Virginia’s 66 public-use airports. BACKGROUND: The VAOC believes that an airport serves its community best when it operates as a responsible community partner. Since most public airports in Virginia are either owned by cities and counties (i.e., “airport sponsors”), or have representation by city or county officials on an advisory board or commission that oversees the airport, it is in every locality’s best interest to ensure its comprehensive planning, zoning, and land use matters are a collaborative process that involve airport personnel, real estate professionals, developers, and government officials. By ensuring that key stakeholders are represented, a community can make informed decisions about land-use decisions that affect its constituents and the capability of its local aviation infrastructure. We are pleased that Virginia code already acknowledges the unique protections that airports require by its mandate for safety zoning: “Every locality (i) in whose jurisdiction a licensed airport or United States government or military air facility is located or (ii) over whose jurisdiction the approach slopes and other safety zones of a licensed airport, including United States government or military air facility extend shall, by ordinance, provide for the regulation of the height of structures and natural growth for the purpose of protecting the safety of air navigation and the public investment in air navigation facilities.” (ref: § 15.2-2294. Airport safety zoning). Furthermore, consideration of surrounding land use compatibility is a requirement for airport sponsors that receive federal assistance under Grant Assurance #21, Compatible Land Use: “It will take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft…” POSITION: The VAOC is concerned that the language of HB467 and SB354 appears to restrict a locality’s ability to establish or maintain mandatory real estate disclosures - an industry best practice - to inform citizens about airport noise, environmental impacts, or proximity to aircraft flight paths. Our position is that any legislation that addresses mandatory real estate disclosures should not interfere with a locality’s legal authority to prescribe measures that responsibly inform citizens about airport operations, promote compatible land use, and achieve compliance with federal Grant Assurance #21. Furthermore, we support the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority’s (MWAA) proposed amendment to this legislation.

I write on behalf of the 17 member cities of the Virginia First Cities Coalition to urge the strongest possible support for SB 597 to give Virginia's local governments the option to adopt an affordable housing dwelling unit program by amending their zoning ordinance. We've always found it disturbing that some localities are able to avail themselves of the specific tools found in § 15.2-2304 while others are not. We've heard from all 17 of our members that they would at least like the option to use § 15.2-2304 if it is the right fit for them. Our members have looked at other housing affordability options for ALL levels of affordability using § 15.2-2305 or § 15.2-2305.1 and they tell us that these statutes do not provide the "secret sauce" to get these units built. Let's face it, we all want more housing access, choices and all levels of affordability and we have to all work together with builders, developers etc to get there so that they can make a profit. However, if local governments are NOT using statutes provided to them because these statutes do not provide the tools that they feel they need, then why not let them try what 6 other Virginia local governments have used and appear to be working? With SB 597, Senator McPike has drafted a bill that provides options within options without a mandate. We urge you to support and pass SB 597.

On behalf of the American Wood Council, attached, please find comments regarding lines 32-34 of the latest version of SB 597 concerning Design Control. We would like to more about the intent of this subsection of the bill and welcome the opportunity to work with the committee or sponsor on crafting amendment language to make changes to these lines.

25,547 in legal invoices from Mercer Trigiani in the month of January to the Potomac Yard HOA. If you notice, a deductible was paid to directors & officer insurance to Carr Maloney. Therefore, the Potomac Yard HOA should not be spending money on legal for lawsuits. Look closely to what I have attached, over 40% of January expenditures went to the HOA lawyer and the predatory and worthless property management company. If Senate Bill 672 passes and gets enacted, the Potomac Yard HOA will incur over 300k in legals fees in 2024. Pia, and Mercer Trigiani, will argue anything is a contractual obligation. Although, they will lose in court, but they do not care. Mercer Trigiani does not have a fiduciary responsibility to the Potomac Yard HOA. There needs to be statute a HOA can not not spend more than 10% of its annual budget on property management and legal fees. Please vote "NO" for SB 672. Next, from SB 672 (presuming it gets passed and this is in anticipation), the first sentence for "a fee for services provided" is not to be charged against all owners, so it would have to be charged against less than all, presumably just those using the service (such as landscaping enhancements on private property). The second sentence, which brings in assessments, says that the POA Act does not prevent an association from using "assessments, charges or fees" to pay for "contractual or other legal obligations" for its "duties and responsibilities." In what way is providing customized landscaping on a board director's property or property owned by a condo association any kind of obligation, or a duty or responsibility of our HOA or any HOA? This bill will further run the legal cash register for HOAs.

I live in a 6 story condo in the Potomac Yard HOA. Our common areas are owned by our condo association . These condo common areas will not be off bond for another 3 years. Not to mention, we have 9 affordable housing units in our condo association. However, our HOA seems to think they can charge me for landscaping design on town home properties through-out the HOA. I have enclosed documentation to confirm these unlawful charges. So what do I do? Sell my condo or sue my HOA? All HOA meetings have been virtual. It has been impossible to address the board. They hide behind Zoom. Landscape Conceptual Design. The landscape designer has requested an amendment to the Landscape plan to include 15 additional hours at the cost of $1875.00 for Board approval. The original contract was $5000, of which $2500 has been paid for the conceptual design and the remining $2500 would be paid for the final phase of the project.

Good afternoon, Every community association has distinctive governing documents, features, and specific needs. The Burkholder v. Palisades case has an inadvertent and significant impact on other associations' ability to provide services and conduct their business smoothly. Governing documents are created before the project is approved and cannot be expected to predict the future. Communities evolve over time and needs change. Adaptability is crucial and an association’s elected leadership must be able to make changes to services beyond those expressly stated in the founding documents and the cost to amend is significant (beyond the scope of most associations). To ensure that associations continue to provide both necessary and requested services to their residents without any impediments, it's essential to support SB 672. Vote "yes" will safeguard the investment of owners in the communities we all serve. Thank you.

This email below is the embodiment why HOAs in Virginia should not have any latitude for expenses that are non on HOA Common Areas. FirstService Residential has been charging Potomac Yard HOA members for late payments on an office space rental and utility bills, violation notices, late payments by other HOA members, new account set-up fees, the community manager's computer ink, resale inspections, architectural modifications on private residences and/or condos., office cleanings, and drywall repair. In turn, I file a DPOR complaint against FirstService Residential. Guess what the the Potomac Yard Board President does? Makes a unilateral decision as to whom will have access to HOA invoices, going forward. Do not take my word for it. Please see below. In addition, the Board President cut-off my access from seeing invoices so I can not view what board directors and/or landscaping committee members received customized landscaping on their private lots, which are not on HOA common areas. To exacerbate matters, the HOA President has the HOA attorney, Pia Trigiani, attend DPOR meetings while they investigate FirstService Residential. In turn, charges all honest due paying members. One would think the HOA attorney should be protecting honest due paying homeowners and not doing whatever the HOA board President wants. There should be a Statute HOA members can only be charged for legal fees related to common areas. Again, please vote "No" or defer SB 672 until you have more time to review and hear from us HOA members who are being ripped off by our HOA. Very truly yours, Frank Capone ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Clea Benson <cleabensonpyhoa@gmail.com> To: frank capone <caponef@comcast.net>, Margo Detwiler <Margo.Detwiler@fsresidential.com>, Mia Polk <Mia.Polk@fsresidential.com>, Christopher Dibble <Christopher.Dibble@fsresidential.com> Date: 09/29/2023 8:28 AM EDT Subject: Potomac Yard accounts payable system access Dear Mr. Capone, This week, access to the Potomac Yard accounts payable system was limited to the Association president and treasurer -  at my direction to the management agent, First Service Residential.  This action was not taken, as you suggest, in retaliation for complaints filed against FSR or Association complaints you have filed according to the Association complaint process.   These access parameters are in line with the common practice and restore our protocols to practices in place prior to 2022.  While Association members have a right of access to Association books and records and Board members are entitled to have information necessary to fulfilling their fiduciary duty for service on the Board, there is no right of access to the accounting systems of the management agent.  Neither members nor directors of the Association have a statutory or regulatory right to management accounting system access, particularly when information is used to harass and disrupt the routine conduct of Association business.  This action was necessary to protect the Association.  The matter of this change in protocol will be added to the agenda for the next Board meeting so that the Board can consider whether the immediate action is in line with Association policies and in the best interest of the Association.  Sincerely, Clea Benson PYHOA Board President

Security stations and SECURITY GUARDS are located on COMMON AREAS and therefore are NOT at issue under the current statute § 55.1-1805 or the court opinion. Fees "for services provided or related to use of the common area" are 100% allowed. POAs are not governments, but private organizations run by contract. How would homeowners have stability in understanding what they have to pay for year to year if that can change every time the composition of the board changes? This is exactly why declaration terms need to be clear beyond Common Area authority and legal requirements.

Please VOTE IN FAVOR of Senate Bill 672. Associations should always have the authority to expense assessments for expenses incurred in carrying out their legal obligations and authorities.

As an industry professional, managing various Condominiums and HOA’s for 18+ years in the DC metro area (and specifically VA), I'm writing to provide support for SB672. Much like national, state and local politics, Homeowner and Condominium Associations in VA are a representative democracy, governed by homeowner boards who are elected every year by their fellow homeowners. Many things communities do are not expressly provided for in the declaration. And, as a previous commenter noted, it seems to be more and more difficult each year to find interested parties even willing to run for common intertest community boards. As an individual, I'm not saying there aren't instances association funds are spent on things that I find to be ill advised, that's just my opinion. Some communities may have a security guard stationed at an entrance presumably for the safety of the community and as I understand the operational environment now, that could be challenged if there is no express authority for this in the declaration, which is absurd. The point is, if enough homeowners believe funds are being spent for frivolous things or things that they should not be spent on, run for the board and effect a change. Ninety percent of the time, you won’t even be challenged. Common interest communities were created, in part, to help offset government service costs. While I certainly understand the counter argument, if you really want to limit board authority, ban HOA's and condos and let municipalities take control of common areas and services.

My association provides so many recreational activities to the community. Through collective bargaining we are able to keep trash costs down despite increased fees passed down from the county. In a time when inflation is high and a sense of community dwindling, my neighbors and myself need all the support we can get. Please support SB672 to keep our community strong.

PARTICIPATION in TRASH COLLECTION SERVICES is REQUIRED BY LOCAL LAW. POAA § 55.1-1805 covers "as otherwise provided by law" in its first sentence. Neither the statute nor the court opinion prevent a POA (or its property manager) from being the intermediary to collect trash hauling fees from residents to pay the trash hauler.

I am writing to express my strong support for SB672 and to encourage the committee to approve this crucial bill. As someone who has been working in a management firm overseeing Condos and HOA's since 2011, I believe that this legislation is essential for the smooth operation of these communities. Having carefully reviewed the comments against the bill, I respectfully disagree with some of the concerns raised. While there may be isolated cases of questionable expenses in certain associations, in my extensive experience, I have not witnessed such issues in the associations I have managed or heard about from my colleagues. The Burkholder v Palisades case, while benefiting a specific association, may inadvertently harm the thousands of others that operate professionally with active Boards and Committees comprised of dedicated volunteers. It is crucial to recognize that local jurisdictions encourage the establishment of associations by developers to ensure oversight and the maintenance of communities in accordance with county approvals. Many of these associations, including those I have managed, have expenses that are not explicitly authorized, such as trash services. The ruling in question could potentially lead to disputes over budget items like trash services, causing chaos for associations and residents. Moreover, suggestions to modify declarations, while valid in some cases, come with their own challenges. The process is time-consuming, requiring months of effort from volunteer Board members, substantial financial resources for attorneys, mailings, and other expenses. This approach is not practical for addressing every unforeseen expense that may arise. I urge the committee to consider the broader impact of this ruling on the majority of well-run associations. A "yes" vote in support of SB672 will help maintain the stability and functionality of these communities, preventing unnecessary chaos and burden on volunteers who dedicate their time to serving on Boards and Committees. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I trust you will make the decision that serves the best interests of the majority of associations and their residents.

Please VOTE IN FAVOR of Senate Bill 672!!! SB 672 was introduced in response to Virginia appellate decision that erroneously interpreted Section 55.1-1805 of the Property Owners’ Association Act to broadly restrict the purposes for which duly levied assessments could be used. The bill intends to rework this Section to more accurately reflect the statutes’ original purpose (i.e., to restrict what types of charges an association can impose) and to make clear that associations may use assessments for expenses incurred in carrying out their legal obligations and authorities. SB 672 does not grant associations broader authority and instead continues to prohibit associations from imposing charges against one or more but less than all owners except as expressly provided by the statutes.

Please find attached another reason why you have to vote "NO" for SB 672. Our property management company, FirstService Residential, is charging all HOA members for resale inspection fees, new bank account set-up, fees violation notices, and for a $342 legal disclaimer on a board candidates bio. If SB 672 is enacted, will our HOA argue and purport they have to pay the resale inspection fees, new bank account set-up fees, violation notice fees, and legal disclaimer bios for the mere fact this would be a contractual obligation? Talk about inviting more needless and expensive litigation. After thinking through this, the courts look at the mutual expectations of the parties. I had no expectation of military-style inspections on my property when I bought it. I also had no expectation - or even knowledge - of paying to maintain a county park. There is also no distinct duty or obligation in the declaration that requires an HOA to do lot inspections every year. Declarations contain clauses that allow homeowners to take action against each other for HOA covenant violations - the HOA is not required to get involved . Even worse, I had zero expectation sof maintaining and repairing landscaping at 3 nearby condo associations. Nor I was expecting to be charged for customized landscaping on a private lot of the Potomac Yard HOA landscaping committee chairwomen. Again, I urge you to please reject SB 672 at this time for both the confusing drafting described as currently drafted, SB 672 gives extremely broad rights to POAs and leaves homeowners with no certainty as to what their financial responsibilities will be from term to term with their POA boards of directors. These boards are on staggered terms, so it's extremely difficult to change course once bad spending decisions are made.

I am writing in support of this bill. As a manager of a large-scale community with over 6,600 homes, it is imperative that we are able to continue to provide services that are implied in the governing documents but may not be explicitly authorized. The case of Burkholder vs Palisades may have far reaching unintended consequences to HOA's that are operating with the utmost integrity. It is important to understand that Homeowners Associations are governed by an elected Board of Directors comprised of volunteer homeowners as well as supporting committees such as Finance. The budget that determines member assessments are prepared by the volunteer Finance Committee and reviewed and approved by the Board. Any expenditure they approve in the budget affects their personal monthly expenses as well. The Association on a monthly basis reviews financial statements and continues to look for ways to cut spending while still providing vital services and maintaining the common areas. I fear that without the adaption of this bill, many services may get called into question whether or not the funding for the service can be obtained by member assessments. Should funding not be able to be obtained, then the HOA will have to rely more heavily on the few members who volunteer their time to serve. People often like to complain or hurl accusations, but few are actually willing to volunteer their time to run the association. Out of 18,000 residents, we had 5 people run for the Board of Directors. Putting more on their plate will further dissuade volunteerism.

A few associations complaining out of almost 9,000 in the Commonwealth is no reason to pass reactionary legislation. What this indicates is that something is amiss with those few associations -- not the law or the higher courts of Virginia. ---- SB 672 is not a "fix" for anything, but will queue up new arguments for litigation against POAs, such as unconscionable contracts and financial mismanagement. HOMEOWNERS CANNOT BE RETROACTIVELY FORCED INTO A "CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION" THEY DID NOT KNOW ABOUT OR AGREE TO. Contract law simply does not work like that. ---- A common problem in POAs are boards that don't know where their authority ends and entitled sub-groups of homeowners who want a benefit for themselves to be paid for by all the members of the association. Reserved parking spaces that exclude all but select members from common areas that all members pay to maintain is a repeated issue that Virginia courts have ruled against multiple times. In my HOA it was some members wanting all of us to pay to replace privacy fences around half the members' backyards and a board president who hid behind a business name to get paid for punishing, intrusive lot inspections with no basis in law or contract. SB 672 is an attempt to blur otherwise clear lines. ---- POA Legal framework: +Common Areas that support and benefit the entire community are paid for by all members ---- +Items on individual Private Property are paid for by the property owner ---- and +LIMITED Common Areas in the community that are accessed by only a select group are PAID FOR ONLY by that SELECT GROUP. Aside from the simple issue of fairness, POAs are set up as not-for-profits, which prohibit "profits" or benefits from flowing back to members if the POA wants tax-exempt filing status. Another increasingly common problem is POA boards being taken advantage of by their lawyers. The lawyers tell boards what they want to hear instead of giving objective legal advice, then try to change the law when their bad advice loses in court. PLEASE SUPPORT 2 Million+ HOMEOWNERS (your voters and constituents) and reject SB 672. 

Here is the You Tube video of Pia Trigiani bringing 3 lawyers (Michael Zuppan, David Mercer, and Pia Trigiani) to a Potomac Yard HOA board meeting. This is outrageous. Our condo association and by extension, affordable housing residents, are already being charged for landscaping and maintenance of 3 nearby condo owned associations, which our HOA has no legal or contractual (Declaration) obligation to maintain or repair. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hqQUcGIZtnsiXlt0fouc8XaWgfmfrBr2/view We also being charged by our HOA for Pia Trigiani to attend multiple DPOR meetings while they investigate our property management company, FirstService Residential, for making numerous late payments and other unlawful and unauthorized spending. I have attached a late payment for your review. Now it has been brought to my attention the mayor, Justin Wilson, has refused to meet with Alexandria City residents regarding SB 672. However, he has taken the time to meet with Potomac Yard residents regarding the "Arena". Here is the video. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iNY69Y_8EW6Pdi5KcBOhuiKjK5TCaxzf/view?usp=sharing SB 672 was sponsored by Adam Ebbin. It is my belief Alexandria City is sending Sarah Taylor to speak in favor of this anti-homeowner bill in their attempt to lure Adam Ebbin to vote yes on the "Arena". Horse trading. Please vote "NO" on SB 672. SB 672 will adversely affect homeowners and your voters with too much unauthorized and unlawful spending. Homeownership is already too expensive.

To those from HOAs who "support" SB 672 because you claim that the Burkholder case doesn't allow your HOA to do X, Y, or Z, I have a question for you: WHY NOT JUST AMEND YOUR DECLARATIONS SO THAT THEY EXPLICTLY PERMIT X, Y, OR Z? I suspect it's because you can't convince your fellow homeowners that X, Y, or Z is a wise use of money?

Please consider the attached letter in support of SB 672.

IF YOU WANT TO ALLOW HOA BOARDS TO USE HOMEOWNERS' MONEY FOR PRIVATE ALCOHOL AND PRIVATE DINNERS (AND OTHER ABUSIVE, WASTEFUL EXPENDITURES), THEN VOTE YES ON SB 672. But if you care about protecting the rights and expectations of Virginia citizens who live in HOAs, I urge you to OPPOSE Senate Bill 672. SB 672 is dangerous, unnecessary legislation that would infringe on the rights and expectations of homeowners and allow HOAs to waste residents' money on expenses that are not authorized in their declarations and that do not relate to the common areas. The bill does not represent or support the more than 2 million homeowners living in HOAs in Virginia; it does nothing to enhance "consumer protection." The Virginia Supreme Court correctly refused to review a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals holding that homeowners associations may not impose any assessment or charge unless the charge relates to use of the common area or is explicitly authorized in the declaration. That was a common-sense ruling that is perfectly consistent with the language of VA HOA law and the expectations of residents who live in HOAs. SB 672 would undue that ruling and again allow HOAs to abuse their residents. As just two examples of how HOAs and their boards run amuck in Virginia: My HOA in Alexandria has spent over $20,000 per year in assessments to maintain a CITY park (which certain board members just happen to near). That same HOA also budgets over $6,000 per year for food for board and committee members (money that board and committee members may use not only for regular board meetings but also for alcohol at private parties attended by only board or committee members). Nothing in the HOA’s declaration permits such expenditures, and such expenditures are unrelated to the common areas. If SB 672 becomes law, such abusive expenditures would again be permitted, allowing HOAs and their boards to exploit residents, especially low income residents who don't have the resources to move or fight back. Much of the testimony before the Senate in support of SB 672 was a combination of misleading half truths and manipulative fear mongering -- along with a grossly exaggerated and hysterical "parade of horribles" that supposedly would result unless SB 672 is passed. To the extent that the court ruling creates any "uncertainty" or "confusion," those who testified tellingly failed to acknowledge the most obvious, simplest, and fairest solution: HOAs can simply ** amend their declarations ** to explicitly authorize any expenditures that residents desire! But of course, the HOA industry doesn't like that solution because it would require actually convincing a majority of residents that indefensible expenditures (like $6,000 per year for alcohol and private dinners for board members) is somehow "good" for their communities. Declarations are legal contracts between homeowners and HOAs that specifically outline the rights, obligations, and expectations of each party. They should be strictly construed and interpreted (with any ambiguity going against the HOA), pursuant to Virginia's common law tradition. HOAs and their boards should not be permitted to spend residents' hard-earned money however they want, on whatever they want, as SB 672 would allow. SB 672 would gut the few restrictions and guardrails that currently exist to protect homeowners and their large investments. Please oppose this dangerous legislation with a NO vote on SB 672!

I am writing in support of SB 672. This bill would fix the unintended consequences of the Virginia Court of Appeals decision in Burkholder v. Palisades, which are already adversely affecting our homeowners association in Alexandria and causing our legal bills to skyrocket.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this one (attached) says it all. Please allow those in opposition of this bill to speak to the committee. We were denied time to speak to the Senate committee while the lobbyists were given over 5 minutes.

To Virginia Delegates: Please REJECT SB 672 for Property Owners Associations (POAs). The BILL SUMMARY MISREPRESENTS what the bill actually says. The summary states that the bill restricts associations from imposing charges against unit owners unless specifically authorized by the Act. In fact, SB 672 actually gives POAs the ability to charge for A FEE NOT AUTHORIZED by the Act. It states: “no association shall impose a charge against one or more but less than all lot owners UNLESS the charge is (i) a fee for services provided, (ii) related to use of the common area, or (iii) a fee expressly authorized in § 55.1-2316.” This wording removes the “fee for services provided” from statutory authorization and allows such a fee with NO DEFINITION and NO LIMITATION ON “SERVICES.” If the intention is to allow fees for necessary services such as trash collection, then revise the language to “ESSENTIAL SERVICES” or “MUNICIPAL SERVICES.” As written, SB 672 could allow POA boards to intrude on decisions for services like internet or cable or window washing that are otherwise individual homeowner choices. ----- The SB 672 DRAFT LANGUAGE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Because of the word “unless,” it actually states that “a fee for services” and “a charge related to the use of the common area” can be charged against LESS THAN ALL lot owners. ----- The language of the SECOND SENTENCE leaves room for OVERREACHING that will FUEL LITIGATION over the limits of POAs to take money from homeowners and what POAs can spend that money for. Please add the word “WRITTEN” to “CONTRACTUAL or LEGAL OBLIGATIONS” for clarity and limitation. ----- SB 672 conflicts with Va Code § 55.1-2305, for Common Interest Communities, that requires a POA’s governing documents to DISCLOSE to prospective home buyers what assessments will pay for, and that a POA cannot increase assessments for current homeowners unless the purpose is for the maintenance of common areas and common facilities. Indeed, Virginia law does not require that a POA be formed unless it has common areas. ----- For most people, buying a home is the most expensive and important purchase they will make in their lives. Housing security is fundamental to human welfare. Considering that POAs have the power to put liens on homeowner properties and even take a home in foreclose for not paying assessments, it is imperative that homeowners are informed on their financial obligations as much as reasonably possible before joining a POA, and that they can rely on those representations not changing greatly without their consent. ----- SB 672 would remove the safeguards originally created by POA Act § 55.1-1805 for more than 2 million Virginia homeowners by allowing POAs to levy assessments and charges for expenses that were not agreed to when homeowners bought their homes or authorized by statute -- and expose homeowners to the possibility of fines, liens, lawsuits and even foreclosure for not paying those assessments. POAs have declarations that define their rights and powers, and any body of homeowners may amend a declaration to increase those rights and powers. There is no justification for giving POA boards power to override their members. ----- Senators who know about property owners’ associations, such Senators ROUSE and SUROVELL VOTED AGAINST SB 672. Please join them, SAVE THE HOMEOWNERS and vote NAY.

To House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia: As a board member of the Potomac Yard HOA , myself and another resident, tried to get information about why the HOA was paying for certain things, including landscaping for three of the condos buildings and parking spaces that were reserved for only a few owners to use (including the HOA president), and, instead of simply providing a straight answer, legal counsel Pia Trigiani and HOA president Clea Benson gave us the runaround. Then, on February 7th, Clea Benson told the Senate committee that the HOA's "legal fees tripled" but didn't explain that the HOA's law firm rebuffed legitimate questions about the legality of HOA spending. That was why another owner ended up filing legal actions in general district court. We were trying to get information that any homeowner would be entitled to. Also, the HOA unnecessarily had three senior lawyers attend virtual HOA board meetings (posted on YouTube - see attached), which is another reason legal costs increased. They also apparently did not contact the POA's liability insurance carrier regarding the litigation, which should cover those costs. Also, are HOAs permitted to lobby or take positions on public policy issues? This is why we have civic associations. There is no choice with an HOA. You don't buy your home based on the HOA's political views. Pia Trigiani sounded like an imbecile when she said that the court of appeals “misread an or.” Uh, no — She tried to misread the whole statute! Not to mention, the entire bench of the Virginia Supreme Court reviewed the opinion from the appeals court and declined to change it. In closing, please don’t give HOAs the means to abuse more power and vote "NO" for Senate Bill 672. Very truly yours, Frank Capone caponef@comcast.net Senate District 39 Delegate District 5