This page is intended for use in posting opposing views and comments.*
* What follows are counter arguments or opposing views as provided to me and permitted by others. They are not my opinions. Attribution is provided when authorized.
Topic- This page was added to expand the ability of SHCA owners to express opposing views to the ones I have provided on this site. While I suspect opposition exist, none has yet to be provide for use on this page.
View- None have been provided
Topic- Declarant Control threshold
View - In legal filing noted SHCA asserts "NRS 116.31032(1) specifically states that the transition of control happens when 90% of the units have been conveyed, “[r]egardless of the period provided in the declaration. See NRS 116.31032(1). Therefore, as stated by the statute, regardless of the fact that §2.19 of the Association’s CC&Rs states that control of the Association shall transition from declarant to the membership 60 days after 75% of the units have been conveyed, pursuant to NRS 6.31032(1)(b) transition of control is not required until 90% of the Association’s units have been conveyed.”
“Plaintiff’s [Mr Kosor] argument that NRS 116.31032(1)(b) simply creates a ceiling for when control of a community association must transition is erroneous. NRS 116.31032(1)(b) does not create a ceiling, it creates an absolute threshold. By the language of NRS 116.31032(1)(b) even if a community association’s declaration states that control shall not transition till 100% of the units have been conveyed, control of the community association will transition when 90% of the units have been conveyed. By the same token even if a community association’s declaration says that control of the community association shall transition when 10% of the units have been conveyed, the transition of control is not required to occur till 90% of the units have been conveyed./// Declarant is not required to transition control of the Association to the membership before 90% of the units have been conveyed simply because its CC&Rs contain a provision that states transition shall occur at 75%.” (SHCA 11/17/23 Opp to TRO, pg 18, ln 7)
Topic-
View -
Q- Some believe if our parks were to be maintained by the County, they will deteriorate. A concern? What would you propose if elected?
A- Many of our parks are required to be open to the public- not just owners. I strongly believe before a community accepts responsibility for "public" parks it should be put to a majority vote of all owners and not a simple action by our board. I believe the laws also requires this. It is after all a huge obligation. To my knowledge this never happened in SHCA. I have told the board this repeatedly, asking for justification, and they reconsider using our assessments for the maintenance of "public" parks until an owner referendum occurs.
In 2005 the developer attempted to transfer several of our now "public" parks to the county. This was understandable and conformed to the developer's agreement with the County. Maintaining "public" parks is the job of our public agencies, not one I see best done by an HOA. But the transfer never materialized. The County tells me they do not know why. Really? In any case, our current situation finds owners saddled with huge park funding obligations and the associated liability.
Do I see quality issues if our parks were under County control? No. Not all our parks would be transferred, just the ones build under the developers agreement with the County. Mr. Rexus, a long time senior project manager for Olympia Companies and former SHCA board president, asserted in a recent board Q&A session, the parks in question were not constructed to county standards. Was this the reason transfer efforts never materialized? If true, should this give owners additional concern?
Second, I see no evidence the County is unable to maintain the "public" access parks properly. Mountain Edge has a number of County maintained public parks. I see the recent flurry of email on park maintenance as an unfortunate effort to mislead owners. By in large, County maintained parks are excellent. Most all newer parks maintained by the County and Henderson are in very good condition. This idea of poor governmental maintenance appears to be very old news and/or a rumor possibly gaslighting spread by those with an agenda.
Third, the Association will always pay close attention to the conditions of parks in our community, operated by the County or not. We as owners are a large political block, that if led properly on this issue, is capable of insisting on and receiving quality park maintenance.
Owners already pay for public park maintenance as part of our property taxes. I doubt many owners are excited about paying twice- once in our assessments, then again in taxes to maintain other parks in other communities. This is just another example of Clark County using HOAs to cost-shift public obligations. On the other hand, should a majority of owners vote to do so, as a director, I would naturally work to further that mandate.
Q- Why do you say we did not get the Sports Park promised?
A- Our community's Sports Park was finally delivered in 2018. It was first promised to open in January 2008- ten years earlier. It's delivery was "re-scheduled" several times. At one point Clark County stopped the issuance of residential building permits, albeit for only a short period. Many times the promises failed to materialize on schedule. Naturally, I am disappointed with the Commission. Yes, this delay encompassed some challenging economic times for the developer. But this does not explain or provide a viable excuse for the deficiency in the infrastructure of the Sports Park as delivered. It is drastically less than first promised in 2005.
What I believe we did not get is far from trivial. We did not get "...one (1) lighted ball field 4-plex and two (2) practices fields for a total of six (6) little league fields", shaded spectator seating for ball fields and multi-use facilities, two (2) concession/restroom facilities, two entrances with parking and more. Here is one of the diagrams.
The County Commission failed our community by approving changes to the sports park requirements in 2015, while our board did little, if anything to my knowledge, to defend community interests. I wish the County Commission and our board would explain their actions/inaction instead of simply leaving it to speculation.
Q- Understand you ran before. Why did the SHCA Board refuse to send out your first candidate letter?
A- It appears the "Board" made a decision not to send my application in the past. You will need to ask its members to get a definitive answer.
What I can say is I expected my full application to be part of the ballot mailing. Unfortunately, my candidate application was not part of the ballot package when they were finally mailed. I immediately and strenuously objected- but to no avail. My name was on the ballet but my application was not provided. Nonetheless, I still received great community support. But not surprisingly, seeing how owners had little information about me or my policies, the many votes I did receive were not enough. I hope this election will be different.
The Board (thru Counsel) informed me my request for unit addresses justified the Board's excluding my full application from the ballot mailing. There was no requirement my application be withheld. I filled a formal complaint with the Nevada Real Estate Ombudsman. It asserted having "investigated" my objections and some other election related concerns. It took no action against our Board.
Q- The association does not answer our questions. Can we request that the Board place allegations it violated the CC&Rs on the agenda? And if so, how do I make this happen?
A- NRS 116.31087 requires the board place the subject of a complaint by an owner on the agenda on the next regularly scheduled meeting of the executive board. The request must be made in writing alleging the executive board has violated a provision of the statutes or of the governing documents.
Unfortunately, the law does not require the board respond. I believe this is not what the legislators intended and I am seeking legislative change to require a response.
Owners with questions, wish to provide opinions, or provide corrections to what I have provided above or anywhere in this web site should use the "contact box" or email me directly at kosorM@gmail.com.