Village Managers Formally Request Contract Extension

While CA attempts to take control of the village buildings and the revenue they generate, it is simultaneously finalizing a new management contract with the villages. The contract is the other source of funding for the villages, determining how assessments collected from residents are disbursed back to the villages to perform HOA functions. CA rejected nearly all of the revisions requested by the Villager Managers and put forth a contract which is heavily one-sided and imposes costly and burdensome requirements on the villages. The contracts must be signed “as is” by April 22, 2025, or the Villages will not receive funding, which is monies that have been paid by their residents.

The Village Managers requested a contract extension from CA President/CEO Sean MacInnes. Although the extension was similar to the one that CA initiated in 2023, CA has not responded to the request.

At the March 27, 2025, CA Board of Directors meeting, River Hill Village Manager Renée DuBois read a letter on behalf of eight of the ten villages. The letter formally requested an extension to the current Management Contract. Following the reading of the letter, DuBois emphasized the need for unity and collaboration between the Columbia Association and the villages. She highlighted the importance of equitable funding to ensure all villages can serve their communities effectively.

Renée DuBois’s testimony to the CA Board of Directors:

“As we move forward, it’s crucial to recognize that the Villages share far more common ground than differences. Columbia as a whole cannot truly thrive if some of its villages are left behind. Owen Brown is correct in identifying that it does not receive sufficient revenue from CA to operate effectively. However, the solution cannot be to take funding away from other villages. Instead, we must unite in finding a way to ensure all villages are adequately funded.

One possible approach would be to establish a work group dedicated to examining how to restore village funding. The current funding levels and formula fail to provide sufficient income for village budgets without revenue from facilities. There is more than enough annual share to meet the needs of both the Villages and CA. Yet, by not guaranteeing a percentage of the annual charge share, the budget artificially renders the villages financially unstable. For instance, in FY26, River Hill, my staff budget is projected to be cut thousands out of our budget, both events and personnel. With an overall CA budget of $83 million, it is embarrassing that Villages must fight year after year for crumbs from the association’s table.

Each village should receive funding sufficient to support covenant enforcement, community engagement, and public advocacy. As the primary point of contact for residents, we must prioritize the frontline services the villages provide. Only after these essential services are fully funded through the residents’ annual charge should additional funds be allocated at the CA-wide level.

Accessibility is vital to serving our neighbors effectively. However, the management contract offered by CA provides no guarantees that village managers will have office space within their respective communities if CA takes over building management. To best serve residents, village staff must remain embedded in the community, readily available to address questions and resolve issues—both big and small.

It is imperative that we prioritize the financial stability and operational independence of Columbia’s villages to preserve their vital role in fostering community connections and providing essential services. By addressing funding inequities and ensuring accessible management, we can protect the unique character and contributions of each village. Moving forward, a collaborative approach will be essential in ensuring that Columbia remains a vibrant and inclusive community for all its residents.”