Proposed HOA bill will micro-manage communities

Editor's note: Barbara Holland takes a break from her usual question-and-answer format to talk about bills before the Legislature that would affect HOAs.

Senate Bill 185 is a continuation of the mirco-management of associations that has become synonymous with the name of state Sen. Michael Schneider, D-Las Vegas.

Section 16 of the proposed law would not allow an association to establish its fees or charges for any goods or services provided to the homeowner that exceeds the maximum amount established by the Commission for Common-Interest Communities. If the ommission has not established a fee, then the association can charge the actual cost -- just what the commission was established to do, decide how much an association can charge to rent the clubhouse, charge for a gate clicker. And we wonder why the commission is behind in holding its hearings?

Section 17 would prohibit an association for fining someone who was speeding because a radar gun was used to determine the vehicle's speed. I have never quite understood the opposition to radar guns. Everyone who lives in a homeowners association knows perfectly well which streets are called the "racing drag streets."

No matter how many speed bumps are created, speeding vehicles continue to endanger communities, and sooner or later a real tragedy can occur.

Section 18 subsection 1-L is already law and can be found in NRS 116.335 which pertains to an association prohibiting a unit owner to obtain approval to rent or to lease units with certain exceptions. What the senator wants to add to the existing law is that the statement from the association is written in a clear and plain English in bold type and in easy-to-read font. (Just like NRS 116 that requires associations to hire attorneys because no one can properly interpret some of the laws that have been passed over the years). Each year, we having been adding so many sections in bold, soon all will be in bold.

Staying with Section 18 under 1-L, the association would be required to have a statement in plain English about the responsibilities of the association and that of the homeowner as it pertains to maintenance, repairs and replacement of the common elements and of the homeowner's unit.

First, we already provide much of this information. The operating budget lists the maintenance services that are included in a homeowner's assessment.

Second, we have a detailed and specific reserve study that lists the repair and replacement responsibilities of the association for its capital improvements, i.e., roofs, streets, pools .

Third, most governing documents have a number of sections that pertain to maintenance and repairs and are categorized according to specific topics and not all lumped together as the proposed law would require.

The real maintenance problem pertains more to condominiums than single-family homes and that problem usually involves plumbing, sewer back-ups in common lines, water intrusion and mold. These problems more often involve issues between homeowners as opposed to the association. The difficulty associations or homeowners face is to have the homeowner who caused the problem pay for the repairs.

Section 21 is a prime example of passing a law that you just changed last session that really has no rhyme or reason to be changed again. The current law, NRS 116.31034, requires an association to have a minimum of three directors who must be unit owners. The proposed change would take us back to 2007 when the law stated that at least a majority of directors be owners unless the association's governing documents state that they are not required to be owners. Can you imagine what our driving laws would look like if the Legislature changed them as often as they do association law?

Section 22 is comparable to a number of proposed laws that would prohibit an association from charging for minutes.

Recently, a Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist complained about the fact that the newspapers are often required to pay more than a $1 per page for government information from the state, and often there were delays in obtaining information. In fact, the state can charge as much as $3 for copying documents.

The issue is not sending one set of minutes to a homeowner, either by electronic or paper format. The issue comes when a homeowner asks for the last 10 years of minutes. Who will pay for the work involved in obtaining these minutes, many of which would have to be obtained from storage, copied or scanned into the computer and saved onto a disk?

It is the labor time more often than the actual copying of the information (except for homeowners who want it printed for them) that costs money. The law fails to acknowledge or even address the reality of this expense.

Remember now, homeowners can also ask for audio copies of the minutes, another expensive item.

Every section in NRS 116 that requires a homeowner to pay for the copy and labor costs (not to exceed $10 per hour and or 25 cents per page to copy) would be eliminated. Picture a homeowner asking for a copy of all of the financial statements of the association for the last 10 years at no cost to that person. More of the HOA dues would be used for such administrative work by managers or management companies.

Other sections of the proposed law pertains to the regulation of transfer fees, revising the disclosures that a seller must provide to a buyer and revising the provisions governing civil actions to protect health, safety and welfare (this is a major change in the law) that will be discussed next week.

Barbara Holland, certified property manager, is president and owner of H&L Realty and Management Co. To ask her a question, email support@hlrealty.com.