As POHOA approaches its January meeting, several important issues are emerging at once:

Whether the Board may impose a single trash provider,
Whether homeowners may continue to use separate yard-waste services,
Whether the Board may prohibit multiple contractors,
How these restrictions interact with HB22-1139 (public-right-of-way access law), and
The proposed $35 Special Assessment tied to these changes.

These topics affect daily life, homeowner expenses, and even individual contract rights — so it is essential that we ground the conversation in the actual language of the governing documents and in Colorado law.

This post explains the governing documents, recent Board actions, statutory requirements, and the procedures necessary to ensure any final decision is valid and community-driven.

1. What the Governing Documents Really Say About Trash Service

The controlling language appears in the Declaration (CCRs), Article VI, Section 2: Trash Collection.

Governing Document Excerpt (verbatim):

“The Association, acting through its Board, shall have the right to require that any trash collection within the Common Interest Community be performed by one company and that trash be collected from all Lots by such company on the same day of each week. The Board shall select the trash company based on competitive bids. At the option of the Association, the cost of trash collection shall be paid by each Owner directly to the trash collection company, and in such event, the Association shall have no duty to assess the cost of trash collection as a Common Expense.”

Plain-language interpretation:

The Board may require a single trash provider only if POHOA elects to provide trash service as an Association function.
This authority is not automatic; it is conditional.

There are two legal frameworks:

Framework A — HOA-Provided Trash (Common Expense model)

If POHOA adds trash collection as an Association service, the Board may select the vendor after a proper homeowner-noticed budget or assessment process.

This requires:

Inclusion in the annual budget OR
A properly approved Special Assessment

Both require homeowner participation, not a Board-only decision.

Framework B — Individually Contracted Trash (our current model)

The second half of the paragraph states:

“the cost of trash collection shall be paid by each Owner directly to the trash collection company…”

This is our existing structure.
Under this structure:

🔹 The HOA does not provide trash service.

🔹 Homeowners choose their own vendors.

🔹 The HOA cannot impose a single provider.

This is critical:
The Board cannot switch us from Framework B to Framework A without a homeowner vote.

ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS:
Our governing documents contain a section about trash collection (Article VI, Section 2). Here is what it actually means in plain English:

**1.1. The HOA has the option — not the requirement — to provide trash service.**

The first sentence gives POHOA the right to require that trash be collected by one company.
But it does not say the HOA must do this.

A “right” is something you may choose to use — it does not activate automatically.

1.2. If (and only if) the HOA chooses to provide trash service to the whole community, THEN the Board must pick the company.

This is where the “Board shall select the trash company” language applies.

In other words:

Step 1: The community decides whether trash becomes an HOA-run service.
Step 2: If the community chooses that option, THEN the Board selects the vendor using bids.

The second step cannot occur until the first step happens.

Right now, Step 1 has never happened.

1.3. Today, POHOA does NOT provide trash as an HOA service — homeowners contract individually.

Under the second half of the clause:

“the cost of trash collection shall be paid by each Owner directly…”

This describes exactly what we currently do:

Everyone hires their own provider
The HOA does not contract for trash
The HOA does not bill us for trash
Trash is not a budget item or a common expense

Because we are still in this model:

The Board does NOT yet have the authority to choose a trash company for all owners.

1.4. Switching to HOA-provided trash requires a homeowner vote because it changes services and expenses.

Moving from homeowner-selected trash to HOA-controlled trash would:

add a new service to HOA responsibilities
change how expenses are handled
potentially increase assessments
create a new financial obligation for owners

Under CCIOA, ANY action that changes owner expenses or adds services must involve homeowner participation and approval, not just a Board vote.

So before the Board can ever pick a company, owners must vote on:

“Do we want trash collection to become an HOA-run service?”

Until homeowners answer yes, the “Board shall select” sentence does not apply.

1.5. The clause does NOT say that the Board always picks the company.

Some might try to read the clause that way, but it would require ignoring:

the first sentence,
the conditional nature of the authority,
the expense implications under CCIOA, and
what we actually do today.

If the drafters intended the Board to always choose the trash company regardless of model, they would have said:

“Trash shall be provided exclusively by one company chosen by the Board.”

They did not.

Instead, they wrote a right, not a mandate, and tied it to a choice the community has not made.

1.6. In simplest terms:

The Board may choose the trash company ONLY after homeowners vote to make trash an HOA service. Until then, homeowners keep their full freedom to choose and contract with their own provider.

This is the interpretation that:

prevents the Board from imposing new obligations without approval.

fits the text,

fits Colorado law,

preserves homeowner rights, and

2. Yard Waste: Homeowners’ Prior Request for a Second Contractor

Several homeowners previously raised the idea of obtaining a separate yard-waste collection vendor, particularly because:

Republic Services charges significantly more for optional yard-waste bins,
Some residents have large gardens or compost needs,
Other companies offer much cheaper seasonal yard-waste pickup,
Many Front Range HOAs allow multiple vendors for this reason.

However:

✔ Lora rejected the use of a second vendor

✔ Even though the CCRs do NOT prohibit multiple vendors

✔ And even though the governing document language applies only to trash, not yard waste

✔ And even though nothing in CCIOA authorizes banning lawful competition

This categorical denial has no basis in the governing documents.

There is a meaningful difference:

Trash is governed by a specific CCR clause.
Yard waste is not.

Therefore, homeowners retain full freedom to contract for yard-waste services unless the CCRs explicitly restrict that right — and they do not.

3. Attempting to Restrict Vendors Conflicts with HB22-1139

HB22-1139 was passed specifically because HOAs were attempting to:

control contractors
block service providers
regulate public-right-of-way activity
restrict movement of vendors on public roads

HB22-1139 prohibits HOAs from regulating:

public streets
public right-of-ways
parking on public roads
access provided to contractors who perform lawful work

The statute was enacted after HOAs attempted to block landscapers, contractors, political canvassers, and utility workers.

POHOA’s roads are public, not private.

Therefore:

✔ POHOA cannot restrict contractor access

✔ POHOA cannot prevent a yard-waste-only vendor from operating

✔ POHOA cannot force homeowners into a single private service contract that interferes with access over public roads

✔ Any attempt to block or forbid other lawful trash or yard-waste contractors conflicts with HB22-1139

Even if the Board selected one trash provider for its own purposes, it cannot lawfully bar competing vendors from the roadway.

Thus, prohibiting a second yard-waste vendor is not supported by the CCRs and is directly contradicted by state law.

4. Why These Issues Must Be Decided at a Homeowners Meeting — Not a Board Meeting

When taken together:

Selection of a single trash provider
Elimination of yard-waste vendor options
Prohibition of multiple contractors
A new Special Assessment

these changes constitute:

➤ A material alteration of owner obligations

➤ A change to homeowner costs

➤ A service restructuring governed by the Declaration

➤ A matter that reduces homeowner choice

➤ A policy intersecting with CCIOA and HB22-1139

No Board has the authority to impose these changes in a regular Board meeting.

These issues must be presented at a Homeowners Meeting where owners have:

notice,
discussion,
transparency,
and a vote.

5. Zoom Access and Meeting Recording Ensure All Homeowners Can Participate

Our CCRs contain no prohibition on:

Zoom broadcasting,
remote access, or
homeowner recordings of open meetings.

Colorado law requires that HOA powers be strictly limited to those expressly stated in the CCRs.
Since no such power exists to ban recordings or remote access:

✔ Homeowners may record meetings

✔ Homeowners may provide Zoom access

✔ The Board may not prohibit documentation of open proceedings

Recordings and Zoom access ensure:

transparency
accurate minutes
access for traveling or working owners
a reliable record if disputes arise

These tools protect both the community and the Board.

6. Mailed Ballots Are Required for a Fair and Defensible Vote

POHOA successfully used mailed secret ballots during COVID.
The same method is the only reliable, inclusion-maximizing option here.

✔ Ballots mailed to owners with the meeting notice

✔ Ballots returnable via USPS, email, or secure dropbox

✔ Secret ballots to ensure privacy

✔ Clear deadlines for submission

This system produces:

broad participation
a verifiable paper trail
elimination of pressure to use proxies
reduced conflict
and a legally defensible outcome under CCIOA

Together with Zoom and recording, it ensures every homeowner can participate meaningfully.

7. Summary: A Transparent, Lawful Path Forward

✔ The CCRs allow one trash provider only if POHOA formally adopts trash as an HOA service

(Which requires a homeowner vote.)

✔ Yard-waste vendors cannot be prohibited

(Nothing in the CCRs bans them; HB22-1139 protects access.)

✔ The Board cannot adopt these changes at a Board meeting

(They require a Homeowners Meeting.)

✔ Zoom access and recording ensure transparency and equal access.

✔ Mailed ballots ensure participation and prevent disputes.

When all of these tools work together, POHOA’s decision becomes:

transparent
inclusive
legally defensible
reflective of the community’s true preference

This protects homeowners, protects the Board, and strengthens trust in POHOA governance.

If anyone would like a copy of the full legal brief underlying this summary, I am happy to provide it.