ISSUE: MULTIFAMILY HOUSING

There are several large apartment complexes being proposed in the Eldorado - Aliante area.  If they all are built as planned would add over 2000 apartment units into that area.  Two of the projects are on the agenda (Items 2 and 32) for the North Las Vegas City Council Meeting at 6 PM on Wednesday, April 2nd at the North Las Vegas City Hall. 

http://www.cityofnorthlasvegas.com/MeetingsAndAgendas/PDFs/FullAgendas/2008_04_02/Agenda040208.pdf

******************************************************************************************

CODE ENFORCEMENT

The following link is to a map of the North Las Vegas Code Enforcement zones: 

http://www.ci.north-las-vegas.nv.us/Departments/CityManager/PDFs/CodeEnforcementMap.pdf

*************************************************************************************

ISSUE: WATER CONSERVATION

A View through the Water Glass

When is a glass of water more than a glass of water? When it’s provided at a restaurant and never consumed.

Believe it or not, one glass of water can use up to three gallons of water to produce. How, you ask? One glass of water includes the water in the glass, the ice, the washing and rinsing of the glass and the water consumed by the machine that produced the ice. It all adds up.

You and our area restaurants can make a difference. It’s simple. Only order water when you intend to drink it. If you usually sip sodas, iced tea or coffee during you meal, ask that only those beverages be served.

And never feel miffed if your server doesn’t automatically bring water to your table. In many cases, your favorite restaurant is already looking out for water conservation and is participating in the Water Upon Request program.

The Water Upon Request program is partnership among the Nevada Restaurant Association, Water Conservation Coalition and Southern Nevada Water Authority. More than 250 restaurants are signed up. Participating restaurants agree to only serve water when it’s requested. It saves the restaurant water, time and money and it helps our community reduce water waste.

The Water Upon Request program provides participating restaurants with menu stickers to identify their support of the program and water conservation. So, look for the sticker, only order water when you really want it and let participating restaurants know how much you appreciate their efforts.

Glass by glass, our desert community can help save water and become a more water-efficient place to live.

This water-smart information is brought to you by the Water Conservation Coalition (WCC). The WCC is a public/private partnership formed by community leaders, including your employer/organization, to help promote water-efficient business practices and community-wide water conservation.

******************************************************************

iSSUE: GAS LAMPS

The following is an e-mail exchange regarding the latest status of the gas lamp issue:

Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:54:12 -0800
From: <jhall64063@cox.net>
To: Richard Cherchio <richardcherchio@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Complaint letter

Richard, I have a problem which I hope you can help with. I received the list of homeowner associations and there are over 400. Unfortunately, when I volunteered to make the phone calls, I was told that there were names and phone numbers - not names and addresses. I have already mailed out 20 letters but I cannot afford to do so for the 400 associations. Do you think there is a way I can distribute this task? It will be about $180 bucks between printing, mailing and envelopes!

Jackie
---- Richard Cherchio wrote:
> Hello Jackie:
> I think your letter is very good, and to the point. Your also correct to first let them respond, then we could bring them up to date. Remember Michael Dyck, and the Yahoo site he set up for us. It's there for you when you see fit. Yes I did see the interview, and it had some good information. You can see the extent of the confusion with these lamps, when you heard the resident speaking about the gas cost, and going through his meter.
> Vast majority of us have no idea how these things are connect. If for whatever reason you need me, other than through e-mails, my cell is 325-6708. This week I have several meetings with communities that want someone to attend their meeting, to speak on the lamp issue. My e-mail load is getting scary, so if I don't respond, call me. Thanks for what you also are doing. Info. is being dribbled to me that there may be some movement on SWG's part. If it turns out, it believe it could be either a waiver of their abandonment
> fees, or agreeing to cap the line at the very base of the slab. The latter would be the simplest, and less costly, and messy for us. Thanks, R.
>
> jhall64063@cox.net wrote:
> Richard, attached is a letter I drafted to send to the homeowner associations on the list as registered. I think if they respond, we can then give them some instructions about how to contact their representatives and also get them up to speed regarding the issue. Did you catch the short interview on channel 3 news last night at 6pm? It was good. Thanks again for all your help. Once I draft this letter, I will put 2 on a page and cut it in half and then mail some out at a time. There are no phone numbers on the printout, only addresses. Jackie
>
> ---- Richard Cherchio wrote:
> > Tomorrow I will meet with Pete from SWG. to walk my community The Parks. I have some specific questions for him, and will share them with you afterwards. "The Parks" has always taken the position that any abandonment required of us, and the related costs, are the responsibility of the company who originally installed these lamps in such a fashion that they now consider them a safety issue not to do so. Since we were never informed, or part of the original agreement, nor are " WE" asking for them to do this, the burden is with the company in question. That company being SW Gas. In all good conscience, we as a Board of Elected Officials, and myself as President can not just let this cost be transferred now to our people, either directly by a special assessment, or in directly through a monthly assessment increase. I truly believe to do so would be a violation of our Fiduciary responsibility to our 449 homeowners. Richard.
> > P.S. I have left the attached correspondence to share a very small glimpse of the on going attempt by all our Associations involved to protect their homeowners interests as well. Thank you all for your support, and concern.
> > 
> >
> > Marvin & Eileen Minushkin wrote:
> > That is wonderful and we are sharing it with approximately 17,000 registered voters.
> > Thank you,
> > Marvin
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cheri Perlman [mailto:cda@co.clark.nv.us]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:02 PM
> > To: emmm41165@cox.net
> > Cc: Camille Leavitt
> > Subject: FW: Complaint letter
> >
> > Mr. Minushkin:
> >
> > Commissioner Maxfield will keep you in the loop as well with any updates that we receive.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Cheri Perlman
> > Assistant to Commissioner Maxfield
> > 455-4901
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > From: Camille Leavitt
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 1:24 PM
> > To: 'emmm41165@cox.net'
> > Cc: Chip Maxfield; Cheri Perlman
> > Subject: RE: Complaint letter
> >
> > Dear Mr. Minushkin:
> >
> > Commissioner Woodbury is making an effort to assist you by speaking with SW Gas President, Mr. Jeff Shaw. In fact, he wanted you to know that he spoke with Mr. Shaw again this morning at a meeting and Mr. Shaw said that they are working on potential solutions to this issue.
> > Mr. Shaw will keep the Commissioner apprised of their work and I will contact you with updates as I receive them.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > From: Marvin & Eileen Minushkin [mailto:emmm41165@cox.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 6:46 PM
> > To: Camille Leavitt
> > Cc: RICHARD CHERCHIO (E-mail); RICHARD RYCHTARIK (E-mail); PAUL WEIL (E-mail); DAN BRASEN (E-mail); BOB FULLMER (E-mail); JACKIE HALL (E-mail); JOHN DIETZEL (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: Complaint letter
> >
> >
> >
> > Camille: Thank you for you. I respect Commissioner Woodbury's position. However, we have in the Alliance of Homeowner Associations representatives from all districts. It has been our goal to keep the writing to a few. Please see if Mr. Woodbury would honor our request for assistance.
> > Sincerely,
> > Marvin
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Camille Leavitt [mailto:cml@co.clark.nv.us]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:39 PM
> > To: emmm41165@cox.net
> > Subject: RE: Complaint letter
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr. Minushkin:
> >
> > I apologize for the delay in getting back to you.
> >
> > After speaking with Commissioner Woodbury, regarding your request, he asked me to inform you that this situation is not a matter that comes under the purview of the County Commissioners. Protocol among the commissioners prevent him from getting involved in a constituent matter in another Commissioner's district and therefore, he is forwarding your e-mails to Commissioner Chip Maxfield.
> >
> > You will be receiving a communication from Commissioner Maxfield very soon.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > From: Bruce Woodbury
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:00 AM
> > To: Camille Leavitt
> > Subject: FW: Complaint letter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > From: Marvin & Eileen Minushkin[SMTP:EMMM41165@COX.NET]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 3:41:19 AM
> > To: 'Marvin & Eileen Minushkin'; Bruce Woodbury
> > Subject: RE: Complaint letter
> > Auto forwarded by a Rule
> >
> > Camille: We haven't heard back regarding a meeting with Mr. Woodbury and a small committee of HOA's.
> > Marvin
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marvin & Eileen Minushkin [mailto:emmm41165@cox.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:21 PM
> > To: 'Bruce Woodbury'
> > Subject: RE: Complaint letter
> >
> >
> > Good afternoon Camille:
> > Thank you for the timely response. I read Mr. Shaw's comment to you and I want you to know that his comments are appreciated. For your due diligence for Mr. Woodbury whom we respect and admire, Mr. Shaw et. al. comments have been similar for over a year by his staff. Sincerely,
> > Marvin Minushkin
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Camille Leavitt [mailto:cml@co.clark.nv.us]On Behalf Of Bruce Woodbury
> > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:11 PM
> > To: emmm41165@cox.net
> > Cc: Chip Maxfield; Cheri Perlman; Carrie Delatorre; Barbara Ginoulias; Chuck Pulsipher; Nancy A. Lipski; Rodney Allison; Robert Warhola
> > Subject: FW: Complaint letter
> >
> >
> > Mr. Minushkin:
> >
> > Excuse the last e-mail. Please find below, a response from Mr. Jeff Shaw, CEO, Southwest Gas Corporation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > From: Jeff Shaw[SMTP:JEFF.SHAW@SWGAS.COM]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 7:46:44 AM
> > To: Bruce Woodbury
> > Cc: John Hester
> > Subject: Complaint letter
> > Auto forwarded by a Rule
> >
> > Dear Commissionary Woodbury:
> >
> > We are working on a reasonable solution to address the gas light situation. We have worked with the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada on this issue and they are fully informed. There are other facts related to this issue that need to be considered in arriving at a proposed solution. We will keep you informed.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Jeff Shaw
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > The information in this electronic mail communication contains confidential information which is the property of the sender and may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized by the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the contents of this e-mail transmission or the taking or omission of any action in reliance thereon or pursuant thereto, is prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately of your receipt of this message by e-mail and destroy this communication, any attachments, and all copies thereof. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > RICHARD CHERCHIO
> > "Become The Change You Want To See"
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> RICHARD CHERCHIO
> "Become The Change You Want To See"
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -

FYI ... from Councilman Ross below ...

Joseph Mitaly, CM, CMCA; The Masters Association Management LLC; Telephone: (702) 947-4868; Fax: (702) 838-0057

HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS - GAS LAMP CONVERSIONS

We have had many calls from residents and homeowner association board members requesting assistance with the rising cost of utilities, particularly with gas lamps that operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The average total cost per gas lamp for 2007 has been estimated to be between $237 and $261. Many associations have been working with the Governor's Task Force on Energy and Southwest Gas to mitigate some of the gas lamp issues. Residents now have the benefit of that research and work. Unfortunately, there is not an easy fix or a one-fix for all solution to remove or replace these gas lamps. Just as each development is different, there have been a variety of ways that gas lamps have been installed. Each builder established their own designs and contract with Southwest Gas. Typically, the contract stipulates how many years an HOA must maintain these lamps. According to Southwest Gas, the contract cannot be longer than five years. It is important for each association to review their own CC&R's and consider guidance from their attorneys and/or and management company when considering removing these gas lamps. Your first step would be to contact Southwest Gas to see if the contract has been satisfied. You can contact Crayton Jones, director of service planning with Southwest Gas Corporation at (702)365-2397 or crayton.jones@swgas.com. We also have some information that has been put together by Todd Schwartz with the Spring Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association on how to get these gas lamps removed and the processes. If you are interested in receiving a copy, please contact Michelle Thackston at 229-6154.

**********************************************************************

ISSUE: SB 362:

BARBARA HOLLAND'S COMMENTS PERTAINING TO SB 362:

1. SECTION 1. SUBSECTION 3- FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING whether real estate is a common-interest community pursuant to this section, the fact that the real estate is subject to covenants, conditions or restrictions is not relevant or determinative-

I have no idea why someone would want to include this section. Associations are governed by their covenants.

2. SECTION 2. SUBSECTION 5- THE PROVISION OF THIS SECTION do not authorize an association to exercise the power of eminent domain...

I have never heard and I have never seen any covenants, which even discuss or allow eminent domain in their covenants. I have no idea why anyone would even present this section as a change to the law.

3. SECTION 4. SUBSECTION 3- THIS PERTAINS TO ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL of improvements or alterations of the home or unit-

This section will do nothing more but to continue to raise more conflict, more cases to the Ombudsman Office and possibly the Courts- I agree that associations should not unreasonably delay- this is not necessary to put into law. Governing documents already have in their covenants a time line as to how long the association can have in reviewing architectural requests. They also

have verbiage that states that if the association does not approve or reject within that time line that the homeowner is deemed to have approval by default as long as the improvement is compatible with the community.

When you add words such as, “unreasonably determine that improvement is not compatible”, it just raises more conflicts- what do you consider as being unreasonable and what do you consider is not compatible- very subjective- this section is the “full-employment” act for arbitrators and mediators- and by the way- the individual homeowners already have recourse to dispute an association’s ruling in the first place by sending the dispute to the alternative dispute process that is already law- this is really redundant as arbitrators can make decisions based upon the facts that the association was unreasonable as to delay or compatibility.

If the law should be passed, you definitely need to change the approval within 21 days- it should state what is the approval time in the covenants of the association or at least 45 to 60 days- some of these improvement requests take time- meetings with architects and the homeowners, setting appointments to visit homes, etc- not realistic and will cause hardship on the association to comply- these are volunteers and not employees that you can just order- we have to work around many schedules, from arc committee, board, homeowner, architect and sometimes attorneys have to become involved in the process.

4. SECTION 4. SUBSECTION 4- A UNIT OWNER MAY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE ASSOCIATION CHANGE THE APPEARANCE OF A WALL OR ROOF WHICH IS ADJOINING HIS UNIT AND WHICH IS COMMON ELEMENT OR LIMITED COMMON ELEMENT TO MAKE AN IMPROVEMENT

This must be deleted- does anyone even realize that such an improvement can cause leaks, then mold then problems with insurance coverage- does anyone realize the potential liability if someone installs an improvement that actually falls off the roof- this clause does not state that the unit owner must utilize a license contractor who has workers comp who has liability insurance or even a permit- In addition, you will really cause a devaluation in the property values. Can you imagine what a community would look like if everyone decided to add improvements to the roof and to the walls- besides not being uniform which is one of the concepts of association living to protect all property owners’ values, can you imagine the additional expense that an association will incur to paint the building or to reroof- who will pay for the removal of such improvement-

In addition, common element belongs to all of the owners- this is a basic legal definition- what right does one owner have to make changes without approval.

5. SECTION 4. SUBSECTION 5- A UNIT OWNER WITHOUT PERMISSION may change the appearance of his unit by installing shutters to improve the security or reduce energy for the unit- it continues with allowing a system that uses wind energy-

Again- we just can not have owners unilaterally installing without permission from the association- first it is unfair to the majority of the owners who want some consistent look within their community- if you want to include the language than first make the homeowner obtain approval- this way the association can set some uniform standards- also if you are going to include this section in the law, you need to include that the owner must properly maintain the addition- and that the association can enforce the removal if it is not properly maintain-

6. SECTION 4. SUBSECTION 7- VOIDS ANY CLAUSES THAT PROHIBITS OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICTS USE OF SOLAR SYSTEM OR WIND ENERGY-and continues by defining that any regulation which significantly decreases efficiency or performance and or does not allow for alternative use at comparable cost-

Some of my previous comments above addresses this section. How complex is the system to be installed- what will it look like- how does the association who has the legal responsibility to maintain the common area or limited common area paint or re-roof- why should the rest of the owners bare the burden of the extra labor- there are so many law suits now against developers for penetration problems causing water leakage, water damage and mold- will other individual owners be able to sue the association because the mold in their unit came from a slow undiscovered leak caused by penetration from the installation of a system from another owner- there is no coverage any more for associations to receive funds from their insurance companies to cure mold issues- do you all understand the issues of the association fighting with the owner who installed the system to rectify the damages to another unit owner- especially if damage originated on common elements- we have problems just having owners be responsible for correcting damages to the units below when their toilet leaks or when their washing machine leaks-

This is again another type of law that some of the legislators thinks will help or protect owners’ rights yet back fires- costing increase expenses with insurance companies and legal fees- it is abusive in some ways as it allows the minority to overrule the majority wishes of the membership-

7. SECTION 6. SUBSECTION 3.- THE EXECUTIVE BOARD MAY NOT WAIVE OR REFUSE TO ENFORCE ANY PROVISION OF THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS-

What I find ironic is that so many of the changes in NRS 116 that have passed and proposed changes requires the association to be more flexible and to “expand their horizon” when dealing with issues that do not meet the norm such as architectural proposed changes in this bill. It is one thing to state that the association can not refuse to enforce, it is another to state to not to waive- you are trying to legislate without allowing for flexibility, without allowing to consider circumstances in which a homeowner just be given a “break” or be given more time to comply. In addition by including this section, by requiring the association not to enforce, the reality is that there are some issues that it costs too much money to try to enforce, especially with smaller associations. Some of the covenants are not easily enforced or easy to amend- there are some associations that have a rental cap or occupancy standard as to the number of residents within a unit- this is not easy to enforce and it is the type of issue that can travel to the Supreme Court.

I also find ironic that so many of the changes in the law have reduced the ability of the association to enforce their regulations in a more timely manner- these changes were made because the legislature wanted to reduce the power of the associations- now you are including a law that really does not need to be included- associations, on the whole, do enforce their regulations and do not waive them- this section is just not needed.

8. SECTION 7. SUBSECTION 3- IF AN ASSOCIATION LEVIES A CONSTRUCTION PENALTY THAT AN APPEAL TO THE CIC COMMISSION IS AUTOMATIC UNLESS THE OWNER AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVES THE APPEAL-

You have a CIC Commission that has been in existence for quite some time that did not even hear one case during its first two years of existence. Now you are adding a regulation that is not necessary. First, if an owner wants to dispute the penalty they already have the following recourse- one to ask the Ombudsman to become involve and set a meeting between the two parties. Two, the owner can initiate the mediation and arbitration process. Three, the Ombudsman Office after investigation can deem the issue one that needs to be reviewed by the Real Estate Division who then can determine if the issue needs to be reviewed by the CIC Commission- even if the Division thought that it was not an issue and reject the owner’s complaint that owner can still appeal the matter to the CIC Commission.

You all created a process and now you want to circumvent your process for disputes. If we want to be consistent, let’s just drop all of the “middle men” who try to resolve issues and have all issues just go straight to the CIC Commission- if you allow this circumvention, what new one will you add next legislative session.

9. SECTION 8. SUBSECTION 2- THIS WOULD PROHIBIT THE ASSOCIATION FROM FINING AN OWNER FOR VIOLATION CAUSED BY HIS TENANT OR GUEST UNLESS THE OWNER PARTICIPATED OR AUTHORIZED THE VIOLATION, HAD PRIOR NOTICE OR HAD OPPORTUNITY TO STOP THE VIOLATION AND FAILED TO DO SO-

This needs to be deleted. One of the primary complaints that the average homeowner has pertains to tenants- why do you think that so many associations have tried to pass rental caps? Many owners who are investors do not do credit checks or background checks that are allowed by law- many owners are out of state and do not even visit their property- as long as they receive a rent check they could care less of what their tenant does- The first part of the proposed change that you could not fine an owner is absolutely absurd- how many owners do you think participate or authorize the violation- that’s nonsense. Second, with out of state owners and management companies or even individual friends who collect rents, how many of them would even have an opportunity to stop the violation- especially the first violation- FINALLY, the state law already requires the association to have a hearing fine notice before a fine can be assessed on an owner’s account, so this part of the proposed law is redundant.

10. SECTION 8. SUBSECTION 6- LOOK WHAT WE HAVE HERE- ANOTHER SECTION OF THE LAW THAT A FINE IMPOSED THAT EXCEEDS $ 5000 OR THAT IS A VIOLATION WHICH IMPOSES AN IMMINENT THREAT CAUSING ADVERSE EFFECT ON HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DEEMED AN APPEAL AND GO STRAIGHT TO THE CIC COMMISSION-

PLEASE REFER TO MY COMMENTS, NUMBER 8- I guess I did not even have to wait for the next legislative session for the bill writers to expand this direct automatic appeal to the CIC Commission. All of my comments in number 8 applies- WHY ARE YOU OVER REGULATING- WHY ARE CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME- WE ALREADY HAVE A DETAILED PROCESS FOR DISPUTES...

Second, there are very few associations that impose such an initial fine- and when that has occurred, you can be assured that something very serious has happened- and such a fine definitely gets the addition of an owner to attend a hearing- FOR SOME REASON WHO EVER IS DRAFTING THIS BILL HAS FORGOTTEN THAT ANY FINE CAN NOT BE IMPOSED UPON AN OWNER WITHOUT A HEARING- THE OWNER HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND, TO DISPUTE, ETC.

MANY years go, we had an owner’s son, who took his father’s rifle and started shooting into the common area playground- does a $ 50.00 fine sound reasonable to you? Can you see where an association could impose a $ 5000 fine for such action?

THE SECOND PART of the proposed law is even more concerning (for the simple fact that association don’t impose $ 5000 fines as the norm) that a violation which poses an imminent threat to health, safety and welfare needs to be reviewed by CIC Commission- if something is imminent, is something is threatening, are the homeowners and boards have to wait until the next hearing date?

These proposed laws (see my number 8) has to HAVE A BUDGET IMPACT statement- you would be requiring the Commission to be hearing cases on monthly basis- maybe even bi-monthly.

THIS SECOND HAS TO BE DELETED- REDUNDANT- WE ALREADY HAVE MEANS OF RECOURSE- THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO MEET MORE OFTEN AND THAT WILL COST MORE MONEY- AND IF THE IMMINET THREAT CAUSES HARM TO INDIVIDUALS AND OR PROPERTY, AND THE ASSOCIATION IS SUED, WILL THE STATE OF NEVADA DEFEND THE ASSOCIATION BECAUSE THE CIC COMMISSION COULD NOT RESPOND IN A TIMELY MANNER?

11. SECTION 8 SUBSECTION 7- YOU would delete the words, “the Commission affirms the fine”, if the previous section of the law is deleted (see above, my number 10).

12. SECTION 12. SUBSECTION 4C- THIS SECTION WOULD ALLOW UNIT OWNERS TO COMMENT ON EACH ITEM ON THE AGENDA AT A BOARD MEETING-

This inclusion is unnecessary and redundant- the law already requires the association to have a portion of their meeting (a homeowner forum), which allows members to address issues-

The homeowner forum is held at the beginning of the meeting by State law and not at the end of the meeting when decisions have been made by the board.

In many of my associations, we have sent detailed information to the homeowners about proposed changes or about proposed projects and have asked them for their input- we are lucky to even receive four letters in any association. Once we are convened at a meeting place (which is harder and harder to fine), we have a limited amount of time to discuss board business that may or may not interest owners. This time limit is established at the place where we have rented and reserved space to hold the meeting.

13. SECTION 13. SUBSECTION 4A AND SUBSECTION 7- THE PROPOSED LAW WOULD REQUIRE THE AUDIO RECORDING OF THE MEETING AND THEN PROVIDE A COPY OF THE AUDIO TAPE TO AN OWNER WHO REQUESTED THE TAPE.

Our legal counsel has stated that we should not tape meetings because of potential liability- and we are not necessarily talking about liability from the board or the management company- there is more of a problem from individual homeowners making, for example discriminatory remarks, that could result in a lawsuit against the association-

Second, there is the potential lawsuit that the association altered or destroyed the tapes-(even if there was truly an unknown mechanical problem). WATERGATE sound familiar? How long do we need to keep the tapes- right now the minutes must be kept as long as the association is in existence? Additional cost to the association with storage of tapes, etc.

Since the law changed last session allowing owners to tape the meetings, OF THE 2000 UNITS of associations, we have had only one association and one owner who taped one meeting- this is not an issue that is being raised by the majority of our owners or board members- and the fact that so very few owners even come to these meetings and or tape them is indicative of the fact that this is just another proposed over regulation upon associations.

14. SECTION 14, SUBSECTION 4B-THIS SECTION PERTAINS TO HEARINGS AND ALLOWS THE OWNER WHO IS ATTENDING THE HEARINGS TO invite anyone to a hearing including the media, regardless of whether that person is a witness.

EVEN Courts of law have the right to exclude media and we would argue the same for the association. This is to be a hearing and not a circus. Second, unless that guest (proposed law states invite anyone) is a witness or will act as an “attorney-in-fact” to assist that individual in presenting his case, then the “guest” should not be allowed to attend.

Subsection C is partially redundant- it states that the homeowner has the right to testify (the homeowner already has this right, subsection a) --the right to call witnesses (already has that right

in subsection a)-- right to counsel (have never heard of any case where counsel was denied attendance at a hearing)--rights to see all of the evidence (already has the right in subsection a, the presentation of evidence).

What is substantially new would be the requirement for the association to send more than just a written letter as to the board’s decision but would require a more formal legal approach requiring written findings of facts for the basis of their decision. This section would definitely require the associations to have legal counsel at their hearings and would substantially cost the members more money. Legal counsel would have to be paid even if owners did not attend the hearings.

SUBSECTION D would allow a homeowner to one peremptory challenge of a board member and make any subsequent challenges for cause-

SO WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU ONLY HAVE A THREE MEMBER BOARD AS SO MANY ASSOCIATIONS HAVE? The homeowner challenges one director and than wants a second removed- now you have only one director making a decision- WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PROPOSED SUBSECTION IS THAT THERE IS NO TIME LINE FOR WHEN SUCH A PEREMPTORY CHALLANGE WOULD BE MADE OR MAKE ANY OTHER SUBSEQUENT CHALLENGES- IF THIS IS TO BE DONE, IT NEEDS TO BE DONE “X” AMOUNT OF DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING-

In so many potential cases, the homeowner could state that none of the directors will give him a

“fair hearing”- so when a homeowner makes a subsequent challenge beyond the first director in the peremptory challenge, what do we do with the hearing? Not have it? Where do we go from there?

This proposed change gives no direction-

Subsection D should be deleted- why? Because after the hearing, if the homeowner does not believe that the hearing was fair, WE ALREADY HAVE THE LAWS IN PLACE FOR THE OWNER’S RECOURSE AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED IN MY COMMENTS.

FINALLY, section b and c should be modified as previously discussed. I would not delete the part of section “c” that states the right to cross-examine the witness or the right to call witness to clarify subsection “a” further which allows for the testimony of witnesses.

15. SECTION 16. SUBSECTION 3A- THE ADDITION TO AN ALREADY EXISTING SECTION would allow the CIC to waive the regulations for a person to audit or to review the financial statements of an association for those associations whose annual budget is less than

$ 75,000.00 and if the association is granted that waiver, the CIC Commission shall review the audit or review to insure that there were no errors.

The reason for this proposed change was that a number of associations under $ 75,000 annual budget complained about the cost of hiring a CPA. First, to have an audit or a review, you truly need a third party person- so in no case should the waiver include the management company or the board of directors- you negate the purpose of having an audit and a review in the first case. Even if an individual member of the association who was not on the board and who was a CPA who would do the audit or review for no cost or reduced cost, you still would have problems where other owners would complain about the validity of the audit or review simply because “ he is a friend of the board of directors).

FINALLY EVEN MORE IMPORTANT- YOU ARE NOW GOING TO TAKE EVEN MORE TIME FOR THE CIC TO REVIEW THE AUDIT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT????

LETS JUST HIRE THE CIC COMMISSIONERS AS EMPLOYEES AND PAY THEIR SALARIES FOR THE FULL TIME WORK THAT THIS PROPOSED BILL IS ASKING THE CIC COMMISSION TO DO- Other than the one required CPA on the CIC Commission who is going to pay for this review?

What you are asking is that the $ 3.00 per unit per year fee paid by the associations for the general use of the public be used now to pay for the review or audit by a person who has been granted a waiver for an association who does not want to pay their own bill for the audit or review that every other association is paying for whose annual income is over $ 75.000- not that is not fair to subsidize these associations at the expense of the other associations through their $ 3.00 per year payment to the State of Nevada.

16. SECTION 16. SUBSECTION C- THIS REQUIRES AUDITS AND OR REVIEWS TO BE COMPLETED WITH 180 DAYS-

This was discussed at the CIC workshops last year. We need to ADD LANGUAGE, as there are circumstances where you need more time. You could add language whereby either the Ombudsman Office or Real Estate Division grants extensions-

We have seen situations where the association members were doing their own financial statements or reviews that were in such a mess it took additional time for the CPA to correct previous information (previous ending year balances which are needed to perform these audits and reviews)- or where an association had more than one management company within a year. The proposed law should allow an association through its CPA prepare a written statement why an extension of 30 day intervals should be given in order to complete the task- don’t cap the extensions, let that be a decision by either the Ombudsman or Real Estate Division based upon the information presented by the CPA and association for the extension or extensions.

17. SECTION 18. SUBSECTION 9. - THIS WOULD ALLOW A HOMEOWNER TO CIRCUMVENT THE EXISTING PROCEDURES TO SUBMIT AN ACTION DIRECTLY IN DISTRICT COURT in order to avoid paying a fee, administrative penalty or interest to an association if the person believes that it is in error during the immediately preceding 3 years.

And to obtain reasonable costs and attorney fees in submitting the action to District Court.

The existing procedure right now that the legislature created is administrative- the Courts are so over burden that the legislature required that these kinds of disputes go through the arbitration and mediation process- which is faster than going to the Courts- and the changes in NRS 116 allows either side to ask for attorney fees and the homeowner can even ask for subsidy from the Ombudsman Office to help cover for the expense which obviously is not the case when you go to court.

The Ombudsman Office and department is funded by the $ 3.00 per unit per year from associations and not from the general State funds- this is not the case with the Court System- you potentially are causing a substantial increase in cases which will eventually increase the cost of the Court system.

One other comment, if the owner does not like the decision from the administrative process, he can then go to the Courts-

THIS WHOLE SECTION 9, 9A,L 9B, 9C SHOULD BE DELETED

18. SECTION 20. SUBSECTION 10- REQUIRES AN ASSOCIATION TO OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE COMMISSION BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO FORECLOSEON A LIEN

THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST FINANCIALLY DEVASTING PROPOSAL THAT WILL CREATE MUCH HARM TO ASSOCIATIONS-

FIRST, this proposed bill is sending too many functions to the CIC Commission- second, there is a time line in the foreclosure process. Most associations do not even begin the foreclosure process for three months. During that three months’ time, delinquency letters are being sent to the owner warning them that they are delinquent and that intent to lien and foreclosure can happen to them. SECOND, last legislative session, the law increased the time line in the foreclosure process- so it takes even longer to even complete the process. THIRD, if anyone would take the time to look at this issue, generally speaking, when an association is foreclosing on a homeowner, guess who is also foreclosing, the mortgage company-

Our experience indicates that less than 1% of the foreclosures that we initiated are not followed by a subsequent foreclosure by the mortgage company- generally speaking when you are delinquent in your dues to the point that foreclosure must be initiated, the homeowner is delinquent with his mortgage.

FOURTH, the State should not be interfering in this matter. It is a contractual- the homeowner by moving into the community has agreed to pay their assessments. This contract is the covenants. Previous State laws on the books require very specific language to the buyer that you can be foreclosed upon and changes in the law require specific language on the various foreclosure notices that are sent to the delinquent owner.

Even if this section were to be passed, there is no time line as to how fast the decision would be made by the CIC- What can happen is that dues would have to be increased from the paying owners who are supporting the non-paying owners- in some cases, mid year increases as finances could become critical and even force an association into bankruptcy, especially the smaller ones and we do have many associations under 50 units.

THIS NEEDS TO BE DELETED- WHERE IS THE PERSONAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE YOUR PAYMENTS- PLEASE REMEMBER, associations can not foreclose on fines unless they are health safety and 99.9% of the foreclosures are for non-payment of dues only.

19. SECTION 22. SUBSECTION 6- THIS SECTION ALLOWS “EQUAL” TIME IN NEWSLETTERS, ETC FOR OPPOSING VIEW POINTS FROM HOMEOWNERS WITHOUT CENSORSHIP-

My only concern and it is a major one pertains to possible liable-we normally do not receive such letters on a regular basis and often when we do receive such letters, the information is absolutely incorrect. Statements made that a director or manager or board have lied, etc. My second concern is that once an equal time is allowed for the first response to a board that the board will feel it necessary to then respond to the first “equal” time of the homeowner, especially if there are inaccuracies- this cycle would continue as that homeowner would want another “equal” time. Now what you have created is an unending cycle- it becomes reactive and not proactive and it takes much valuable resources away from the management of the association.

You have no idea how one homeowner can take the time of multiple employees in the researching and responding to sarcastic, unfounded letters of misrepresentation and distortion of the facts.

I can foresee that associations will have to significantly increase their legal counsel expenses on their budgets, as more associations will have their legal counsel review their answers and on write their answers.

FROM A MANAGERIAL SIDE THAT HAS SEEN SUCH ABUSE BY A SINGLE HOMEOWNER, I would like to see this section deleted. If it cannot be deleted, there has to be some way that the association could state in their publication, that the uncensored article contains misinformation without this rebuttal process occurring from the homeowner. The law would also need to state that the association will be held harmless if any of the statements made by the homeowner is inaccurate and causes harm to the person or persons or companies that is being discussed by the homeowner as defined by the liable laws.

20. SECTION 25. SUBSECTION 1A,B,C, PERTAINING TO POLITICAL SIGNS-

AS MUCH AS you as politicians want signs around the community, you all know as well as I do that they become liter and that many are not removed in a timely fashion. It is one thing to have such a sign on your front lawn for those who own their front lawns, but this proposal allows the signs to placed on common elements and limited common elements- now you would have our associations look clutter- who will pay for the damages to our walls, who will paint the walls, how many holes will be left for water damage- some associations have specific type of paint on the walls that penetration will void the warranty for leaks- and now the proposed law would allow for more than one sign by each homeowner-and will we have homeowners that tell us to go back to the person running to pay for the damages since they did not install the sign themselves????

This expansion is not needed. It also needs clarification- what if the tenant wants to have a sign- even though it is not included in this proposed section of the law in SECTION 25 SUBSECTION 3, the implication is that a tenant can affix a sign to the property without any knowledge or consent of the homeowner- so if that occurs and there is damage to the property, does the association have the right to go after the homeowner for the damages?

21. SECTION 31. SUBSECTION 4A- REMOVES THE OMBUDSMAN OFFICE ASSISTING IN THE PROCESSING OF CLAIMS SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION OR MEDIATION PER NRS 38.300 TO 38.360-

Then who will assist homeowner? I do not see anything addressing a replacement for the Ombudsman Office.

22. SECTION 37. SUBSECTION 2. IF AN ASSOCIATION IS REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL IN DEFENSE OF A COMPLAINT BY AN OWNER THAT THE ASSOCIATION

MUST PAY THE ATTORNEY’S FEE INCURRED BY THE UNIT OWNER.

I have to be quite honest, I have been working on my comments since 7 am and it is now 12:30- I have worked non-stop and I am on page 43 of the proposed law. When I came to this section, I have to ask myself a question, since when did the State of Nevada adopted SOCIALISM?

THIS NEEDS TO BE DELETED- I am almost so speechless, figuratively that I am lost for words in typing my opposition. The association has a right as well as an obligation to defend itself. The homeowners should not have to carry the financial burden of paying for the legal fees of a homeowner who wants to file a complaint. The complaint can be one of interpretation- so should the members of the association, as a whole, be penalized for enforcing its regulations and how it is interpreted? AT THE BEGINNING OF MY COMMENTS, there is a proposed change which stated that associations can’t waive or refuse to enforce its regulations. You have placed the association in an unnecessary “catch 22”-

How far would you like to stretch this concept- if I sue you for anything, if I sue anybody, let’s have him or her pay for my legal expense? WE ALREADY have laws on the books that allow the prevailing party to ask for the reimbursement of legal fees- we don’t need this regulation.

THIS NEEDS TO BE DELETED.

23. SECTION 38. SUBSECTION 5 - THIS WOULD DISALLOW THE CIC COMMISSION FROM GRANTING ATTORNEY FEES TO THE PREVAILING PARTY.

THIS NEEDS TO BE DELETED- GRANTING ATTORNEY’S FEES TO THE PREVAILING PARTY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT THAT EXISTS IN THE LAW- FOR SOME REASON, the writers of this bill want to ignore the contract that the homeowner has signed with the association and that is the covenants. Awarding to the prevailing party neither solely favors the association or the homeowner- it helps to prevent frivolous complaints and lawsuits-

24. SECTION 41. SUBSECTION 1 B- REQUIRES THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS CERTIFICATE TO MANAGE ASSOCIATIONS TO HAVE A BOND based upon the amount of money that the applicant is expected to control.

There are a number of issues with this proposal. First who will be the bondholder? Second do you need a bond for each association? Individual employees who work for a community management or property management firm may not even be able to obtain a bond individually. Right now the professional management companies already have bonds for all of their employees and not just the certificate holders who for the most part do not even process the money that is received and or even sign the checks. If the management company has a bond already will this meet the requirements of the law- if this is to pass, please do not leave it solely to the Commission to develop regulations- give them more guidelines. Also, for the record, most associations have additional coverage, which includes dishonesty, etc.

If such a law is passed it needs to make the management company carry the bond and or insurance and not the individual certificate holder?

******************************************************************

Please find below the link to two new bills that have surfaced and I thought you would all like to see it.

I have also included the E-mail address of the key sponsors of this legislation for you to respond to her and other Committee members as soon as possible if you agree.

AB 396 - Totally eliminates delegate voting in the common interest community and requires the permission of the Commission for Common Interest Communities prior to being able to foreclose on a lien. Devastating to most of our associations. With the delays in actions before the Commission and their meetings now being every quarter, it would put associations in a terrible position.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/AB/AB396.pdf

AB 399 - Creates a "Private Ombudsman" who must be licensed by the Office of the Ombudsman.

This appears to take away the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints and puts it entirely in the hands of the "private ombudsman" who will be charging the person who complains 10% of his costs and the Respondent 90% of the costs.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/AB/AB399.pdf

Please read them yourselves, decide if you agree or disagree and act accordingly. Any legislation needs to be reacted to by our industry rather than letting the one or two people who got their legislator to propose legislation for them. We need to let them know that one size does not fit all and that we are out there doing what is best for our industry.

The Judiciary Committee is made up of the following individuals who you should include in your correspondence.:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/committees/a_committees/JUD.cfm

Here is how to contact each one of them individually or make your own group to send in response to new bills that pop out:

Bernie Adderson - banderson@asm.state.nv.us

William Horne - whorne@asm.state.nv.us

Marcus Conklin - mconklin@asm.state.nv.us

Susan Gerhardt - sgerhardt@asm.state.nv.us

Mark Mandendo -mmanendo@asm.state.nv.us

Harry Mortenson -hmortenson@asm.state.nv.us

John Oceguera - joceguera@asm.state.nv.us,

James Ohrenschall - johrenschall@asm.state.nv.us

Tick Segerblom - tsegerblom@asm.state.nv.us

Francis Allen - fallen@asm.state.nv.us

John Carpenter - jcarpenter@asm.state.nv.us

Ty Cobb - tcobb@asm.state.nv.us

Ed Goedhart -egoedhart@asm.state.nv.us

Garn Mabey -gmabey@asm.state.nv.us

Copy and paste this group to send something to all of them.

banderson@asm.state.nv.us, whorne@asm.state.nv.us, mconklin@asm.state.nv.us, sgerhardt@asm.state.nv.us, mmanendo@asm.state.nv.us, hmortenson@asm.state.nv.us, joceguera@asm.state.nv.us, johrenschall@asm.state.nv.us, tsegerblom@asm.state.nv.us, fallen@asm.state.nv.us, jcarpenter@asm.state.nv.us, tcobb@asm.state.nv.us, egoedhart@asm.state.nv.us, gmabey@asm.state.nv.us

Below is contact information for future bills that we forward to you:

Total Assembly Members:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/legislators/Assembly/alist.cfm

Total Senate Members:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Legislators/Senators/slist.cfm

The Senate Commerce and Labor Committee that will hear all CIC bills is comprised of the following Members with their contact information.

Randolph Townsend -rtownsend@sen.state.nv.us

Warren Hardy -whardy@sen.state.nv.us

Joseph J. Heck - jheck@sen.state.nv.us

Michael Schneider -mschneider@sen.state.nv.us

Maggie Carlton -mcarlston@senstate.nv.us

Here is their group to make a group for yourself to respond. Copy and past to a group in your system.

rtownsend@sen.state.nv.us ,whardy@sen.state.nv.us , jheck@sen.state.nv.us , mschneider@sen.state.nv.us , mcarlston@senstate.nv.us

Sara E. Barry, CM, CMCA, PCAM; UNLV Certified Paralegal; Wolf Rifkin Shapiro & Schulman, LLP; 3556 E. Russell; Las Vegas, NV 89120; (702) 341-5200; Fax: (702) 341-5300