Commonly Asked Questions

---

A detailed search of all property deeds for Units 2 & 3 reveals all but a few properties had a conveyance clause indicating the property follows restrictions for Unit 1 that were filed with the county. United land deeds assigned Unit 2 & 3 properties to follow Unit 1 restrictions.

See answer to question above. The member's deed contains the conveyance clause.

Yes it can, but, the monthly court cost of $1,500 will continue for the POA to pay. Each delay, like those  caused by filing motions to dismiss, require the POA to incur hundreds of cost to send notifications to all residents.

Yes, a new board can request the proceedings to be stopped. However,  the multiple lawyers working for the POA will still get paid for their services. It is a waste of money without improvement to the POA to stop at this time.

No. Our insurance company agreed to pay the settlement to the complainant in the lawsuit. The POA owes a retention fee to the insurance company according to our policy.

We do not believe the complainant has standing to halt the proceeding since the POA does not owe money to the complainant.

Bylaws specify the Board cannot “do any act that would make it impossible or unnecessarily difficult to carry out the intended or ordinary business of the association”. Financial bankruptcy was pending brought on by the actions of the non-resident’s lawsuit. The Board, acting on on advice from lawyers, sought the protection of a reorganization bankruptcy proceeding. Lawyers also advised the Board that they could request a Special Assessment under the current governing documents.

Canyon Springs Resort was create in July 1960 and the first deed restrictions that specified $18 per lot per year annual assessment was filed in September 1960. If the $18 assessment set in 1960 were allowed to increase annually at the same rate as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) then property owners would have been billed $191.05 for the 2024 assessment. 

Plans that rely on external sources of funding are impractical because the POA is operating as a 501(c)7 non-profit. As such, no more than 35% of total receipts can come from non member sources such as resale certificates, some donations, and facility usage charges. Assessments and donations for the past 3 years averaged $13,874 which would set the cap on non-member sources at $4,856. FYI, operating expenses for the POA averaged $53,908 per year for the past 3 years. The bankruptcy reorganization plan includes amending the Articles of Incorporation to operate as a a 501(c)4 non profit which does not have limits on external funding.

Participation in the elective assessment last year was 54%. That participation rate was 14% lower than the last elective assessment held in 2019. 

CSR POA is unique in that the POA owns 33 acres of easements and parks in 27 parcels in the neighborhood. Taxes, insurance, and maintenance to a vast and aging infrastructure increase our operating cost basis. Other POAs that were sued by residents simply shut down which they could do because the do not have the liability of 33 acres in 27 parcels. Others have chain link fences around their pools and no lawsuits pursuing replacement.

• Transparency – Yes they are transparent. The non-resident with the law suit is the most vocal of that group that stated his objective was to put the POA out of business, put in low cost housing units, and sell memberships to the pool.
• Financial responsibility – Yes they are responsible for the $30,000+ of lawsuit settlement costs that have wiped out any chance of financial viability for the POA. That is why Chapter 11 bankruptcy was filed..
• Accountability– Yes they will be accountable when back in office. Just like they were in 2020-2021 when the board authorized over $7000 of POA funds to be paid to a director's spouse for fund raising. In a recent meeting it was claimed that "thousands of dollars were then collected from fund raisers". The accounting system recorded a total of $698 of income from fund raisers in 2021 and $0 for the year 2022.
• Conformity with the law – Not hardly. Some of that group have already participated in illegal ballot harvesting in prior elections. Investigations into illegally administering legal advice are currently underway with state authorities. Ask them how suing the POA multiple times, steering funds to spouses, interfering with federal court proceedings of the POA under false pretenses, and publicly stating the goal is to put the POA out of business complies with state regulations for the fiduciary responsibility of Board of Director to “discharge the director’s duties…. in good faith, with ordinary care, and in a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interest of the corporation”? Aren't those the very reasons why there was a vote approved last year to remove a director from the board?

Yes it will. The Board reviewed multiple financial plans. All plans, except one with the $250 special assessment, project negative cashflow at some point in the near future. The Board will submit to the court the plan which appeared to be doable with the least negative cashflow and lowest assessment. The court holds the final determination of what the POA financial future will look like.

The plan being submitted to the court includes refunding the money paid for the special assessment, unless the property owner specifies those funds can be used as a donation. Please donate if you can. The bankruptcy court has final say on disposition of those funds.

The easiest way to help is to indicate your support of the bankruptcy proceedings by signing the petition at https://www.change.org/p/support-chapter-11-for-canyon-springs-resort-poa?source_location=search. You are not required to make a donation to the web site operator, change.org, and those donations do not go towards Canyon Springs Resort or current members of the board. Ultimately, it will be your vote for the PARKDBLD candidates in the current election, and, later when the plan is presented for the community to vote on it.