Contact Us

ASPOA Management

This page is informational in nature and does not represent a final decision

ASPOA is no longer using the services of our previous management company. The Board is evaluating the best path forward to ensure stable operations, financial oversight, and responsible stewardship for our 1,600-property community with long-term sustainability in mind.

Three options are under consideration:

1. Hire a New Management Company

  • Pros: Professional systems, reduced volunteer workload, operational continuity
  • Cons: Higher cost, less direct board control

2. Fully Self-Managed

  • Pros: Greater control, potential cost savings
  • Cons: Increased responsibility, requires strong internal systems and expertise

3. Hybrid Model (Internal Operations + Professional Support)

  • Pros: Cost balance, maintains control with financial safeguards
  • Cons: Requires disciplined structure and capable leadership

Understanding the Management Options in More Detail

ASPOA includes approximately 1,600 properties. At this scale, we operate more like a small municipality than a small neighborhood. Annual budgeting, collections, resale certificate processing, compliance enforcement, vendor oversight, insurance coordination, and financial reporting all require structured systems and consistent execution.

The decision before us is not whether management is needed — it is how that management should be structured.

Below is a more detailed look at each option.

Option 1: Hire a Full-Service Professional Management Company

Under this model, the Association contracts with a POA management firm to handle most day-to-day operations. This typically includes billing and collections, financial reporting, resale certificates, compliance processing, vendor coordination, and homeowner communications. The Board’s role remains policy-setting and oversight.

Why communities choose this model:

  • Established systems and procedures
  • Professional staffing during business hours
  • Reduced operational burden on volunteers
  • Continuity when board members change

Considerations:

  • Higher annual cost
    Estimated Range: $345,000 – $575,000 per year, approximately $18–$30 per property per month
  • Service quality depends on the company and assigned manager
  • Less direct control over daily operations
  • Response times can vary

This model prioritizes professional infrastructure and administrative stability.

Option 2: Fully Self-Managed

In a fully self-managed structure, the Association assumes responsibility for operations internally. This typically requires hiring or contracting administrative and financial support while the Board maintains closer oversight of daily functions.

At our size, this would likely involve:

  • An operations administrator
  • Bookkeeping support
  • Compliance coordination
  • Ongoing CPA and legal oversight

Why communities choose this model:

  • Greater operational control
  • Potential cost savings
    Estimated Range: $100,000 – $185,000 per year
  • Increased transparency
  • Faster internal decision-making

Considerations:

  • Requires strong systems and internal discipline
  • Greater exposure if procedures are not followed carefully
  • Risk of volunteer burnout if roles are unclear
  • Success depends heavily on the quality of internal leadership

This model can work well when structured carefully, but it requires deliberate planning and clear accountability.

Option 3: Hybrid Model (Internal Operations with Professional Support)

The hybrid model blends the strengths of both approaches. The Association hires or contracts an internal operations lead while outsourcing certain specialized functions such as bookkeeping or compliance inspections. CPA and legal professionals remain engaged for oversight and risk management.

Volunteer committees may assist in advisory roles such as finance review, architectural review, communications, or vendor evaluation.

Why communities choose this model:

  • Lower cost than full-service management
  • Retains operational control
  • Maintains professional financial safeguards
  • Flexible and scalable
  • Cost efficiency. Estimated Range: $100,000 – $150,000 per year

Considerations:

  • Requires clear reporting lines
  • Depends on capable operational leadership
  • Volunteers must have defined roles and authority limits

This approach aims to balance cost efficiency with professional-grade structure.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is this decision important?

At 1,600 properties, our Association manages significant financial resources and operational responsibilities. The structure chosen will influence cost, efficiency, oversight, and risk exposure.

Is the lowest-cost option automatically the best?

Not necessarily. Lower cost can also mean greater internal workload or higher risk if systems are not well structured. The goal is stability and sustainability, not simply minimizing expense.

Can volunteers replace professional management?

Volunteers can assist through structured committees (finance review, architectural review, communications, vendor evaluation). However, liability-sensitive tasks such as collections, financial controls, and legal compliance typically require professional oversight.

Would assessments decrease under self-management or hybrid?

That depends on overall budget structure. While operational costs may be lower under certain models, other expenses (insurance, reserves, vendor contracts) remain unchanged.

What risks are involved in self-managing a large community?

Potential risks include:

  • Financial mismanagement
  • Inconsistent enforcement
  • Volunteer burnout
  • Insufficient documentation
  • Legal exposure if procedures are not followed properly

Strong systems and professional oversight reduce these risks.

What is the Board’s goal?

The objective is to select a structure that provides:

  • Consistent service
  • Responsible financial management
  • Transparent processes
  • Long-term sustainability

All three models can succeed if implemented properly. The decision requires careful evaluation of cost, structure, and execution.