A few questions I often get are listed below with my answers.*
* I am not an attorney. My answers to the questions below are not legal advice or are they an attempt to provide a legal interpretation of Nevada laws. They are my opinion developed from my researching and fighting for Nevadan HOA owner rights for years.
Q- Why are you doing this- running for a non-paying position on an HOA?
A- It is my home. I believe people with the ability and time should step up and serve. I did in my careers, first in the military, then later as a hospital administrator, and in retirement for with my sub-association. I feel I can do more and I feel the association needs more.
Several years ago I began attending association board meetings- both my sub-association and the SHCA master. I was then and remain so today, disappointed. Not with the community's general condition (albeit improvements can be made) nor our differences of opinion on policy, budgeting, expenditures, and/or contract renewals. Rather, it is the manner in which our community is being governed. I believe a change in governance is needed in Southern Highlands Community Association. I want a community we can be proud of, one that values owners and their inputs, is safe, minimizes infringements on our civil liberties, and where property values are maximized. The board needs to be transparent with owners and owners need to be able to trust the board has the owner's best interests at heart.
I do not trust the current SHCA board. Here is a list of my issue that have that shaped this unfortunate opinion. You can find more on why I am running and my where I would hope to take the community if elected, on this web site.
Farmer Markets are good- as long as owners collectively want them. Community activities are can also be valuable. But again, only if owners knowing what they cost, are accepting. They should not be used only to improve or prop up the community's image solely to foster builder new home sales.
It is critical owner trust is returned to the SHCA board. Owners need to feel comfortable and accepted in the governance decisions of their community. They should never be attacked for expressing opposing views.
Directors must be transparent, act with integrity, and always in the the best interests of the owners - not other entities that may employ them or who's business interest may differ from those of owners.
Q- Some owners complain the disclosures on this web site are bad for Southern Highlands. How do you respond?
A- First, it is important to state I believe everything on this web site is true. I hope we are not at a point where being truthful is bad. Second, it is not intended to disparage any person or business. It is why I have gone to such lengths to provide source documents and/or limited my opinions so readers can make their own assessment. If any reader knows of conflicting information/facts, please contact me on the form provided.
What our board has allowed over many years is bad for the community. I do not see how continuing this or allowing owner's to continue a blind eye approach to issues like - twenty plus years of the developer's control, private operations of "public" parks, known election administration issues, failed community advocacy for growth paying for growth adequately funding police, fire, and green spaces, chilling free speech, and more,- advances community interests.
I recognize governance decisions are never perfect. But what I describe is a series of failures over many years. It suggests a systemic problem. For me, it is the continuing control by the developer. Our board needs to be transparent and act as owner fiduciaries. Owners needed to elect directors committed to provide transparency and demand accountability if we are to put our community on the right track. We need to install a truly American idea- government of the people, by the people, for the people (President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address in November 1863).
My list of issues is far from the occasional disagreements one would expect in a diverse community. The collective issues comprise why I can not trust our board. It should give owners great pause even if you do not agree on my entire list of issues. We must demand an accounting. If there exists an alternate approach to informing owners and calling for owner action, I'd certainly like to hear it.
Southern Highlands is the finest community in Las Vegas. If we aspire to remain a premier community we must act accordingly. No facades. We need transparency, answers, and if appropriate accountability. We do not need nor should we be required to undergo a sandal like other community associations have experienced.
Q- Have you ever held a political office?
A- I am an “operator” by trade (now retired). Advancing projects via politics was always seen as too frustrating. Unfortunately, I have also recently found out the hard way, raising HOA related issues, can be very dangerous to one's financial well being- as my experiences have shown.
Nonetheless, I'd like to make a difference. As this web site reveals, many question exist as to how our community has been led. Someone needs to stand for owners- something I believe is currently lacking.
During my professional career I had success effecting change and moving large organizations forward.
I did serve three terms as a director on the Christopher Community Association Board and was elected in Dec 2021 to my present SHCA Director seat.
Q- What do you mean by Declarant Control? Why should it be an issue?
A- Most homeowners are completely unaware of how Declarant Control (i.e. developer control) works or how long it will remain in place when it exists in their community. This is not surprising. Nevada (as with most states) does not require pre-sale disclosure of the Declarant's (developer's) control status or an estimate by the board or other party as to when termination of developer control will occur.
The untold little secret is developer control under current Nevada law, can effectively be indefinite in some cases. Our regulators do not track it or require owner be given the numbers. The "system" relies solely on the association acting appropriately when the developer termination threshold is reached- even when by definition, the majority of board members are appointed by the developer.
Developer control has a number of implications. In SH the developer has the right to appoint, three of the five directors (the majority) of our association board. The three appointees (of which only two are owners in SH) were, up unit this year, all employees of the Developer. Today, two directors remain employees of Olympia.
Until 2015, declarant control terminated, among other reasons that are rarely applicable, when 75% of the maximum units authorized in community's CC&Rs, are conveyed and no longer under declarant control. This is what our CC&Rs provide. I believe units annexed in SHCA exceeded the the change threshold prior to 2015.
Nevada legislators in 2015 saw it appropriate to change the developer control threshold percentage. The 75% threshold prior the effective date of a 2015 law (AB-192, 2015) was changed to 90%. You will find more information on this web site on my efforts to get clarification. This was arguably simply special interest legislation, lobbied for by developers. Nevada may well be the only state in the nation with a control percentage above 75%.
Nonetheless, I believe the new law does not affect SHCA's. Our CC&Rs are controlling under the statute. It sets 75% as the change threshold.
I asked our board to explain why the Clark County unit count in SH of 9,564, as of September 11, 2020, does not match any reported numbers by the association. At point, why has declarant control not terminated? Since assuming my new role as a director I ask why control change has not be initiated. It seems appears the developer and his appointed directors are using the 90%. I disagree and believe owners deserve an explanation and full transparency.
Q- Rumor has it you are trying to damage the developer's reputation?
A- A very unfortunate rumor not started or accepted by me. Nothing is further from the truth. I believe as owners come to understand the issues they will see that is not the case. It is my opinion the exact opposite exists.
I have always respected what the Developer has done in Southern Highlands. I have said so publicly and privately on numerous occasion, before and since it's regrettable legal actions. The owner lives in my sub-association. His vision, risks taking, and hard work made Southern Highlands a great place to live. If elected, I look to uphold and build on the reputation of the community, not damage it.
I appreciate no one likes to be criticized. But there comes a point where we must stand against what we believe is wrong and do something to fix it. This is what I have done. I am trying to inform SHCA owners and get then to engage to help me fix it. We should be able to disagree without getting disagreeable.
I invested in my home and retirement because I saw a great future for this community. I believe it remains bright. But I also see owners collective investments in our community now far exceeding that of the developer's. Yet, the developer's appointment of the majority of directors on our board continues. This I disagree with.
I also strongly believe there is no greater danger to owners than allowing HOAs, clearly performing public services, to escape generally accepted constraints on limiting free speech under a vail of being a "private" entity. Owners should not fear an expensive legal action for expressing opinions, opposition with how their community is being governed, or when participating in good faith, in its governance.
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.