When real estate developer Jim Rouse created Columbia in the late 1960s, one of his core beliefs was establishing a community intent on the well-being of its residents.

He organized the planned community around residential villages, each with its own shopping center and managed by Columbia Association, a massive homeowners association that in many ways functions like a local government.

Nearly six decades later, tensions have been rising between Columbia Association staff and residents of its 10 villages, each of which has a community association board, village manager and representative to the CA board.

The friction stems from two core functions of how the villages operate: their contract with Columbia Association and the management of their village community buildings and neighborhood centers. In both cases, some residents are frustrated and concerned with steps proposed by Columbia Association staff.

Some villages don’t believe Columbia Association has brought a collaborative approach to discussions over a new five-year contract covering the villages and say no negotiations have taken place. Many residents also recently packed a CA board meeting to voice opposition to proposals to turn over management of village facilities to Columbia Association.

“There is no mutual respect between CA and the villages, and symptomatic of that is how the residents are treated,” said Renee DuBois, River Hill’s village manager.

“It’s not about the villages; it’s not about the CA. It’s about our neighbors and friends who live here,” DuBois said.

Laura Mayton, village manager of Hickory Ridge, told the CA board at a recent meeting that the contract negotiation process laid out to the villages was not followed. Mayton said the working meeting, time to work through conflicts and a joint meeting to present solutions from both parties did not occur.

“We hoped to collaborate with CA to arrive at agreements that would work for all of our organizations for a number of years,” said Mayton, who was selected by village managers to represent them in negotiations over the grant share agreement and the facilities management agreement.

However, Columbia Association President and CEO Shawn MacInnes said in a statement that, “contrary to the misinformation that’s been circulating throughout the community, there have been a number of meetings between CA staff, village representatives and Village Board Chairs to discuss these agreements.”

Mayton disagreed. She noted that the villages were presented with final contract agreements early last month, including a memo that stated if they did not sign them by April 22, the villages would not receive their first-quarter funding for the fiscal year beginning May 1.

At the April 10 board meeting, MacInnes said the April 22 deadline would not be enforced.

“We are certainly not looking to withhold funding from the villages,” said MacInnes, who was hired last year to replace Lakey Boyd, who was popular with many residents but resigned amid tensions with the board. “That’s not how CA operates or how it’s ever operated since its inception.”

Board member Eric Greenberg, who represents River Hill, also has voiced concerns over the status of contract negotiations. He made a motion last week to extend the contract negotiation process until September, fully fund the villages for the first two quarters of the budget year and direct Columbia Association staff to continue “good faith negotiations” with the villages.

The Columbia Association board is not historically involved in contract negotiations, which gave pause to several members to weigh in and provide an extension. A countermotion was made, and the board ultimately voted to table any action regarding the village contracts until its April 24 meeting. Greenberg and board members Karin Emery and Reg Avery voted against the motion.

Last month, seven villages sent a letter to MacInnes and Board Chair Bill Santos asking for a contract extension through Sept. 30. Representatives of Harper’s Choice, Hickory Ridge, Kings Contrivance, Long Reach, Oakland Mills, River Hill and Town Center signed the letter.

MacInnes suggested at the April 10 meeting that his staff meet with the village representatives as soon as possible.

“I think, if we could come to an agreement in principle, then I think we can work out the details and distribute the funding,” MacInnes said. “I think there is an opportunity here for us to reach an agreement without an extension.”

Meetings have occurred and both sides will continue to meet, MacInnes said in a statement.

Lyn Locke, the village manager for Town Center, said the villages are eager to reach an agreement that “everyone can live with and what’s best for all the 10 villages.”

DuBois, who previously served on the River Hill community association board and on the CA board, said both sides “never had this type of tension” during the last contract negotiation.

The last village management contracts were negotiated for fiscal year 2019. The contracts were set to expire last year, but a one-year extension was granted as Columbia Association transitioned from an interim CEO to a permanent new leader, MacInnes.

“The biggest question [last time] was never the contract but about the funding formula of how villages were funded,” DuBois said.

Some villages have also complained about decreases in funding from Columbia Association. Greenberg, in a community letter, wrote that since fiscal year 2019 Columbia Association has reduced the percentage of annual assessment revenue shared with villages from 8% to less than 7%. For River Hill, this means losing out on $45,000 annually, Greenberg wrote.

“I do think the villages are unfunded but there’s also a lack of clarity from CA staff on what is being paid” for by them, DuBois said. “Working from the same facts — that would help everybody negotiate this a lot better.”

The second point of contention is over management of village facilities.

Columbia Association owns the two dozen community buildings managed by the villages, which pay no rent. Each village oversees one to four buildings. Staff recommended that, if the board moved forward, the association either manage all two dozen buildings or provide a centralized system for building reservations and administration while the villages handled in-person and on-site services.

Locke, the Town Center village manager, said “the community buildings and neighborhood centers truly belong to the people.”

“CA may own the buildings, but we are the stewards of the buildings,” Locke said.

The board tabled the topic last month, and the matter has not been rescheduled.