Reader concerned about Legislature raiding ombudsman's funds

Q: Did you know that our legislators will be considering raiding the state ombudsman's fees that all of our (community) owners paid into at $3-per-door?

There is a surplus in that fund right now because of the way the (Nevada Real Estate Division) can use, or not use it and it will be raided unless everyone gets to (our) legislators soon.

At the commission teleconference the other day, they (community managers) were told that there also will be a recommendation to increase the $3-per-door fee to $5 to (help) cover for the short fall. This is really a slap in the face. As the NRED is so backlogged with claims and can't handle them on a timely manner now, taking away their funds will backlog the process further as the staff time has been reduced.

We really need to get to our legislators, big time, and tell them that this is a really bad idea. This is one of those times when we really need to rally together and let them know that this is bad for (common-interest communities) in Nevada.

A: First, the ombudsman office is supported solely from the $3-per-unit-per-year, and not from the general tax fund of the state.

Second, any homeowner of an association with private streets (and that includes HOAs that are not gated) already are being double taxed. Their HOA requires reserve money to replace their streets, lights, etc. At the same time, when they pay property taxes, none of that tax money provides for their streets, etc.

Homeowners in past years have been trying to have this fee reduced as the ombudsman office does not need all of that money, especially when there are too many backlogged cases of complaints between homeowners and their boards and or management companies.

Barbara Holland, CPM, and Supervisory CAM, is president of H&L Realty and Management Co. To ask her a question, e-mail To view a power point presentation of the new laws that were recently passed affecting HOAs, visit, click on press release button on the left side, then click on article title, "The 2009 Legislation for common interest communities."


Rules for posting comments

Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum. Read our guidelines for posting. If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon next to the comment.


Due to an increase in uncivil behavior and dialogue the Review-Journal has temporarily disabled the comment boards. The Review-Journal will use the time to evaluate the effectiveness of the comment boards and find an appropriate time to reintroduce them to