Bella Vista Property Owners Association
Legal name: Bella Vista Village Property Owners Assoc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 710390240
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Bella Vista, AR, USA
- Phone
- 479-855-8000
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $34,186,062
- Expenses
- $33,031,002
- Assets
- $72,365,541
- Liabilities
- $13,606,718
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Thomas Judson (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- Thomas Judson (CEO): $468,348 total reported compensation
- Doug McCash (VP & Legal Counsel): $219,625 total reported compensation
- Beth Nagel (CFO/Treasurer): $216,813 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Bella Vista POA is governed by a Board of Directors, which represents property owners and is responsible for establishing policies and overseeing the administration of the POA, and managing and maintaining common areas, amenities, and services.
What it reported doing in 2024
Recreation: bella vista is a 36,000 acre recreational community in northwest Arkansas offering seven golf courses, seven private lakes, 100+ miles of nature trails for hiking and biking, swimming pools and a beach, parks and pavilions, rv park and campground, recreation centers, tennis center, restaurants, and much more.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 89% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 67
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 54
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 81.1%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 55.2%; rating input score 55; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3.4%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.19; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.7%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 81.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $26.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $468K · 20 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
- Consistency: 43 of 45 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 55/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.