Last week, I received a telephone call from Clark County Assessor Michele Michelle Shafe, in response to my article pertaining to taxes on association homes.
She asked me to correct one error that I made in the article.
I stated that the assessor’s office had changed its procedure as to the methodology in computing the transfer tax (a tax when ownership of property is changed).
The assessor’s office is not involved with transfer fees, it is the Clark County recorder’s office that had established the new policy of using market value instead of the foreclosed dollars owed to the association.
She also wanted me to clarify the issue pertaining to property taxes on association facilities that involved one of the Summerlin associations.
The assessor’s office uses the replacement cost value method of determining the value of association facilities such as clubhouses, tennis court, swimming pool, etc.
The individual homeowners within a homeowners association pay the property taxes for these common elements through their individual property tax bills.
The decision to reduce the assessed value from $19.5 million to $2,500 was decided by the State Equalization Board.
Because this was such a major decision that created disparate treatment among facilities in other associations, and a potential state-wide precedent for common element valuation, and had a major financial effect upon the entire state, the assessor’s office challenged the decision of this board, which is appointed by the governor.
It does not take a math genius to realize that the property taxes would be substantially reduced if the state Supreme Court affirms the State Equalization Board’s decision.
If the Supreme Court affirms the decision, and applies it to all common interest communities, the assessor’s office in Clark County, as well as those assessors throughout the state, would literally be reducing the property values tax on these common facilities to $500 per parcel number (what they call nominal value).
I wish to thank Michele Michelle for her clarification of these issues.
A: Can a homeowners association board disregard, without prior notice, the HOA’s written rules and regulations.
Q: I want to be very careful in answering your question.
If you are stating that your HOA board has totally disregarded the entire written rules and regulations and has done so without notice to the homeowners on a meeting agenda, I would say no it cannot disregard them in their entirety.
If the board is disregarding some of the rules as to its enforcing them, the answer is that it can under the law and under certain circumstances.
Nevada Revised Statutes 116.3102 subsection 3 states that the board does not have a duty to take enforcement action: If it determines that under the facts and circumstances presented the association’s legal position does not justify taking any or further enforcement action; that the rule or covenant is inconsistent with current law; that the violation is not so material as to be objectionable to a reasonable person or to justify expending the association’s resources; or that it is not in the association’s best interests to pursue any action.
The law says that in making such a decision, the board may not be arbitrary or capricious in taking enforcement action.
Barbara Holland, certified property manager, broker and supervisory certified association manager, is president and owner of H&L Realty and Management Co. Questions may be sent to the Association Q&A, P.O. Box 7440, Las Vegas, Nev., 89125. Fax is 702-385-3759, email is firstname.lastname@example.org