Why the Board Is Reviewing This Issue
The timber retaining walls support slopes, separate portions of the neighborhood, and are visible from community roads and surrounding homes. Their condition can affect safety, drainage, appearance, structural integrity, and marketability in the community — even when a wall is located on or serves a privately owned Lot.
The Board is considering a community-wide approach because it could provide:
- Consistent care — inspections and work priorities could be managed under one coordinated plan.
- Timely repairs — necessary work would be less dependent on whether one or two affected Owners can absorb a large, unexpected expense.
- Uniform community standards — repairs and replacements could follow consistent engineering, material, and appearance standards.
- Long-term planning — the Association could phase work, seek competitive proposals, and establish funding before conditions become urgent.
The Declaration of Covenants provides that an Owner is generally responsible for the maintenance of a retaining wall located on or serving the Owner's Lot. The Board is considering whether the Association should instead be responsible for maintaining the retaining walls — coordinating and funding inspections, maintenance, repair, and replacement of all retaining walls within the community. Under the considered approach, all Owners in Covington Station would share the cost, including Owners who do not have a retaining wall on their Lot.
The Board is also weighing the corresponding tradeoff: every Owner could contribute through regular assessments, reserve funding, a special assessment, or a combination — even if no retaining wall is located on that Owner's Lot.
The full inspection report for the retaining walls may be reviewed on the website portal at aepm.cincwebaxis.com, under the Documents folder.
What the Engineer Found
Ray Engineering, Inc. conducted a structural inspection dated June 25, 2025. The report individually identified and numbered 27 timber retaining walls and documented widespread deterioration, drainage, erosion, and safety concerns:
- Deterioration and splitting of timbers at 19 of the 27 walls, associated with repeated water saturation.
- Visible soil erosion, including erosion voids and displaced soil, at 8 walls.
- Damaged below-grade drainage pipes at 2 wall locations, limiting proper stormwater drainage.
- Trees growing directly against the tops of 3 walls; visible rotational displacement was documented at 2 of those walls.
- Collapsed or displaced protective fencing at the tops of 3 walls, creating a fall concern the engineer recommended addressing promptly.
- An exposed tieback anchor at 1 wall, reducing anchorage and increasing the risk of failure at that location.
Replace the timber walls in phases with concrete modular block and correct related drainage conditions. Concrete modular block was recommended as a longer-lasting replacement material.
Why Some Records Show Different Wall Counts
The February 2025 engineering proposal and the Capital Reserve Analysis reference approximately 19 retaining walls. The later June 25, 2025 structural inspection identified and numbered 27 walls. This packet uses 27 because it is the most recent and specific inspection count available.
Retaining Wall Photos
The photos below were taken as part of the engineering inspection and illustrate the conditions described above — including timber deterioration, soil erosion, and damaged protective fencing. Red arrows and circles in several photos were added by the inspecting engineer to mark specific points of concern. Click any photo to view it larger.
Current Responsibility & the Approach Under Review
What the Governing Documents Currently Provide
Based on the Association's review of the Declaration:
- Article V generally places maintenance of a Lot and the improvements on it, including retaining walls, on the Owner. Article V, Section 1 identifies the Association-maintained items as common property, entry features, detention pond fencing, exterior cleaning of siding, and front- and side-yard mowing.
- Article V, Section 3 identifies a wall, fence, or driveway constructed as part of the original development that serves or separates two adjoining Lots as a party wall, party fence, or party driveway — with the cost shared equally by the Owners it serves.
- Georgia case law reviewed by the Association's legal counsel supports treating a retaining wall on or near a boundary line that serves two Lots as a party wall. The adjoining Owners would therefore share responsibility under the current framework.
How a Change Could Be Adopted
The Declaration appears to provide two possible paths. Before taking formal action, the Board would confirm the appropriate process and legal requirements with Association counsel.
- Board action under Article V, Section 1 — This provision gives the Board the right, but not the obligation, to maintain certain property not owned by the Association when the Board determines the maintenance would benefit all Owners. This path does not require a membership vote, but it is discretionary and would require the Board to determine that the community-wide benefit and cost are justified.
- Declaration amendment under Article XIII, Section 4 — A formal amendment would require approval by at least 67% of the total Association vote of Owners who are current on their assessments. If this path is selected, the proposed amendment would be distributed to the membership and submitted for the formal vote required by the Declaration. An amendment would establish the responsibility in a binding and permanent manner, subject to its final terms.
Comparing the Two Approaches
| Topic | Current Owner Responsibility | Possible Association Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Who manages the work? | The Owner or adjoining Owners arrange inspections, repairs, and replacement. | The Association would coordinate inspections, priorities, contractors, and scheduling. |
| Who pays? | The Owner or adjoining Owners pay the cost for the wall serving their Lot(s). | All Owners would contribute through Association funding, even if no wall is on their Lot. |
| When is work performed? | Timing can vary based on Owner resources, coordination, and willingness to act. | Work could follow a professional, community-wide plan based on condition, risk, and available funding. |
| Standards and materials | Individual projects may vary, subject to applicable approval requirements. | The Association could apply consistent engineering, drainage, material, and appearance standards. |
| Main tradeoff | Costs remain concentrated on the Owners directly served by a wall. | Costs are shared broadly, but all Owners may pay more through regular or special assessments. |
Decision Factors: Pros & Cons
| Decision Factor | Pro: Association Assumes Responsibility | Con: Individual Owners Remain Responsible |
|---|---|---|
| Planning and oversight | One entity could inspect all walls, maintain centralized records, rank urgency, and coordinate a phased community-wide plan. | Each affected Owner must identify problems, obtain professional advice, arrange the work, and maintain records. Oversight may vary from wall to wall. |
| Repairs and safety | The Association could respond when professional review identifies an urgent condition, without relying entirely on one or two Owners to agree, coordinate, and fund the work. | Necessary work may be delayed if affected Owners disagree about responsibility or timing, cannot coordinate, or cannot afford a major unexpected repair. |
| Cost impact on affected Owners | Large wall expenses would be shared across the membership instead of falling entirely on the one or two Owners served by a particular wall. | An affected Owner could face a substantial individual expense with limited time to prepare, particularly if deterioration creates an urgent repair or replacement need. |
| Contracting and purchasing | The Association could seek competitive community-wide proposals, phase multiple walls, and negotiate consistent scopes, warranties, and contractor requirements. | Individual Owners may have less purchasing power, may obtain different scopes or materials, and may have difficulty evaluating specialized engineering and drainage proposals. |
| Engineering and standards | The Association could apply consistent structural, drainage, material, workmanship, and appearance standards throughout the community. | Repairs may vary in design, material, quality, drainage treatment, and appearance depending on the decisions and resources of each affected Owner. |
| Long-term property condition | A coordinated schedule could reduce prolonged visible deterioration and support safety, appearance, marketability, and confidence in the community. | One unresolved wall can remain visible from roads, nearby homes, or community areas and may affect more than the Owners who are legally responsible for it. |
| Continuity and enforcement | Responsibility would remain with the Association despite changes in ownership, supported through a continuing inspection, funding, and project process. | Responsibility can become more difficult to coordinate when a property is sold, rented, vacant, delinquent, or involved in a dispute between adjoining Owners. |
| Insurance coordination | If the walls are added to the master policy, the Association could coordinate claims for qualifying sudden and accidental losses while maintaining centralized property records. | Coverage and claims may be fragmented among individual policies, and ordinary deterioration, maintenance, and planned replacement generally remain uninsured in either model. |
The Board's central question is whether the additional shared cost and administrative responsibility are justified by the ability to manage the walls consistently, address priority conditions, and reduce the risk that necessary work is delayed because it depends on individual Owners.
A seriously deteriorated wall could continue to worsen while affected Owners dispute responsibility, cannot agree on timing, or cannot afford the work. In the most serious circumstance, deterioration, drainage failure, erosion, or loss of anchorage could contribute to wall failure or slope instability; damaged top fencing could also leave a fall hazard. Emergency work could then be more expensive and disruptive, potentially affect adjoining Lots or nearby community areas, and lead to enforcement, cost-sharing, insurance, or legal disputes. Visible deterioration and uncertainty could also affect community appearance and marketability.
Financial Transparency
What could this cost?
The Association's August 2024 capital reserve analysis, revised January 2025, estimated approximately $164,000 for five phases of retaining-wall replacement scheduled across 2025–2029, plus periodic maintenance. That estimate predates the June 2025 recommendation to use concrete modular block and may not reflect the full scope now known; updated proposals could be higher or lower.
Will assessments increase?
An increase is likely if the Association assumes this responsibility, but no retaining-wall assessment amount has been approved. The reserve analysis recommended approximately $31,000 per year — or about $105 per home annually — for all listed sitework reserves, not for retaining walls alone. The Board must evaluate updated costs and decide whether funding would come from regular assessments, reserve contributions, a special assessment, or a combination.
What if reserve funding is not increased?
The reserve analysis's existing-funding projection, which assumed continuation of the historical $0 annual reserve contribution, showed the sitework reserve balance becoming negative in 2027, with an estimated shortfall of approximately $63,000 — declining to an estimated shortfall of approximately $493,000 by 2053. This projection covers the Association's listed sitework components, including retaining walls, and indicates that the existing funding level would not be sufficient for scheduled replacements as they become due.
Updated engineering and construction pricing could show that several walls require significant work within a shorter period than anticipated and at a cost materially above the earlier reserve estimate. If reserves and regular assessments are insufficient, the Association could face an assessment increase or special assessment, delay other planned sitework, or phase retaining-wall work over a longer period. Because ordinary deterioration is generally not insured, Owners would ultimately fund the eligible work through the Association.
What funding methods could be considered?
- An increase to the regular annual assessment
- An increase to the amount allocated to reserves
- A special assessment for some or all of the work
- A combination of these methods, potentially coordinated with phased construction
The Board would evaluate updated proposals, project priorities, available cash and reserves, timing, and the effect on the Association's other obligations before selecting or adopting a funding plan.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which retaining walls are being discussed?
The timber retaining walls located throughout Covington Station, including walls between townhome buildings, along community roads, and behind a number of units. The walls vary in height and length, and some have wood or vinyl split-rail fencing along the top to reduce fall risk.
Why does this matter to Owners who do not have a retaining wall?
The walls are visible from roads, common areas, and surrounding homes. Deterioration, erosion, drainage problems, or delayed repairs may affect safety, appearance, marketability, and confidence in the broader community. A community-wide approach could produce a consistent schedule and standard, while also requiring every Owner to contribute.
Why not leave the cost with the affected Owners?
That is the current approach and avoids charging Owners who do not have a wall. The concern is that a major repair may be difficult for one or two Owners to fund or coordinate, which can delay work on a visible or potentially unsafe condition. The Board is evaluating whether coordinated responsibility and shared funding provide sufficient community-wide benefit to justify the broader cost.
Would Association insurance pay for deterioration or replacement?
Generally, no. The Association's insurance agent advised that the walls could be added as Association-owned property to the master policy if responsibility changes. Coverage would generally be limited to qualifying sudden and accidental losses, such as certain storm, falling-tree, vehicle, or aircraft impacts. Ordinary wear, age-related deterioration, routine maintenance, and planned replacement would still require Association funding.
Is the survey a vote?
No. The survey is an informal, nonbinding tool to gauge Owner views. It is one factor the Board will consider alongside engineering priorities, updated costs, funding options, legal requirements, budget impact, feasibility, the Association's other obligations, and overall community benefit.
Will the survey result determine the outcome?
No. The Board is not bound by the survey result. If the Board chooses a path requiring a Declaration amendment, the amendment would be presented separately to the eligible membership for the formal vote required by the Declaration.
Has the Board approved an assessment or construction contract?
No. No retaining-wall assessment amount, funding method, or community-wide construction program has been approved. The Board must first evaluate updated information and determine the appropriate next steps.
What happens after the survey?
The Board will review Owner feedback with updated pricing, budget impact, funding options, engineering priorities, legal guidance, and operational feasibility. Owners will be notified of next steps or of the Board's decision.
Unless and until a lawful change is formally adopted, Owners remain responsible under the Declaration for retaining walls located on or serving their Lots.
Ready to Share Your Opinion?
After reviewing the information above, please take a few minutes to complete the Owner survey. The survey opens Monday, September 21, 2026 at 9:00 AM and closes Friday, October 2, 2026 at 5:00 PM.
Questions may be directed to Atlanta Executive Property Management at 678-235-2270.