Copy of FAQ'S

Q- Why are you doing this- running for a non-paying position on an HOA ?

A- Several year ago, as a new Southern Highlands owner, I attended a number of Association Board meetings. I was very disappointed for a number of reasons. To start, meeting times (typically 10 am) made attendance by most owners impossible. Strangely, the sessions appeared controlled by Angela Rock, the President of Olympia Management, who does not hold a position on the Board. I saw little real discussion on issues. Actions taken on significant issues appeared as if other private meetings/workshops were held. Transparency was clearly lacking.

I began looking into a number of issues. The Board repeatedly refused to release, among other items, draft annual budgets despite being on the agenda for approval. I also felt the Board had side-stepped my formal complaint related to Developer control change - control I feel should have been terminated many years ago (now under investigation by the Nevada Real Estate Division).

It was clear any improvement would have to start from the inside. Encouraged by my neighbors and other SH owners that love our community, I made the commitment to run for our HOA Board as your owner representative.

Q- Why are our assessments so much higher than Mountain’s Edge?

A- The Master Plan fee at Mountain’s Edge (ME) is $31/mo while Southern Highlands residents pay $67- more than double. Not having ME’s financials (I am not a resident) and with the limited information SH provides, the exact answer is hard to determine. It is however a very good question for our BODs to answer. It is certainly one I will immediately look into if elected with full access to association financials.

Based on what I have been able to researched, a number of areas are at the root of our high fees. First, the management contract with Olympia is very expensive. Second, we pay a significant amount (20-25%) of our assessment to maintain what I believe should be publicly maintained parks (see more on this below). Most all public parks in ME are maintained by the County using public dollars- as they should be.

Two other major expenses need to be evaluated- (1) our landscape contract and ancillary expenses with Par 3 and (2) the huge expenditures for legal costs over the past several years. I believe significant cost savings are available in both areas while maintaining quality standards.

Another important area of concern is the funding level of our Reserves. If I recall correctly, our Reserves were last reported at 67% of fully funded. This under funding will eventually come due. I suspect our BOD is under funding Reserves to pay for the above noted excess. Under funding Reserves, the money used to replace expensive infrastructure like roads, is dangerous.

Q- Have you ever held a political office

A- No. I am an “operator” by trade (now retired). During my professional career I had success effecting change and moving large organizations forward. Frankly, I am rightly accused of too often “telling it as it is”. Historically this has not been seen as a beneficial attribute for a politician. But I do listen and believe owners will also, provided the reciprocal is applied.

I feel someone needs to fight for homeowners in SH and I am willing, with the help of owners, to use my skills and experience to make a positive difference.

In full disclosure, I have served for the past three years as a director on the Christopher Community Association Board, but that, as with the SHCA Board, is not a “political” office.

Q- What do you mean by Declarant Control? Why should it be an issue?

A- Most homeowners are completely unaware of the concept of Declarant Control (i.e. Developer Control). This is not surprising. Nevada (as with most state) does not require pre-sale disclosure of the fact that a Declarant (Developer) may still control a homeowners association- control that can be indefinite. They just dump the large CC&R package on your closing table (or worse yet give you an electronic version) and it is up to you to find and understand the extensive terms you agreed to, to include the potential issues.

Developer control (called Declarant Control in the statutes) has a number of implications. The largest affecting SH today, is 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) are also employees of the Developer.

Until recently and per our CC&Rs, Declarant Control terminated when 75% of the maximum units authorized in the CC&Rs were no longer under Declarant Control. Nevada law changed in 2015 (arguably a piece of special interest legislation for our Developer and lobbied for by our senior executives of our Management Company ) moved the control threshold to 90%. Inexplicably and I argue wrongly, the change is being interpreted as retroactive, affecting existing CC&Rs.

Much legislative reform and regulatory oversight is needed around CC&R construction, owner complaint processing, and the general lack of regulatory oversight of CC&R content, to include Declarant Control provisions. For more see Our Issues.

Q- Rumor has it you are trying to damage the Developer?

A- Nothing is further from the truth. I respect what the Developer has done in Southern Highlands. After all its vision, money, and hard work made Southern Highlands a great place to live. Its actions are constituent with those of a developer. As with the developer, I look to uphold the reputation of the community.

I invested in my home and retirement here for the above reasons and more. I simply expect the Developer to release control (end its ability to appoint 3 of 5 board members and more) transferring owners the control as it originally committed. Owner's collective investments in our community significantly exceeds that of the Developer's and control change is what it promised when we purchased.

Q- Rumor has it SHCA is using owner money to pays for a lobbyist. True?

A- Yes, it does and based on my inquiries, it has since 2010-costing owners over $400K. I am told Lewis & Roca, one of many law firms representing SHCA in foreclosure related litigation, is also engaged as our lobbyist.

I do not feel the money was and is well spent. I would work to end these payments. First, it is not clear to me how the payments are being authorized in the first place. I have never heard the BOD approve any contract for said services, the annual payment authorizations, nor can I find anything in Board meeting minutes- one of many transparency issues I have with our BOD. I have attend nearly every BOD meetings for the past four years and have never heard from our lobbyist nor what instructions/issues he/she is tasked to lobby for/against. T

I certainly do not understand why our BOD feels we need a lobbyist given it never seems to communicate issues at the State or County level potentially affecting owners.

I found it disturbing to discover a member of the law firm engaged by the HOA, actually lobbied Nevada legislators in support of a bill (AB 192-2015) that eventually passed and changed the developer control threshold from 75% to 90%. This is certainly not something in the best interest of SH owners, yet we as owners never even learned of the bill prior to its passing or related lobbyist efforts to pass it.

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- First, I strongly believe that whatever the community does with the parks it should be done only after a majority vote of owners (required per the law), not by our Developer controlled BOD. I also believe if owners are to accept obligations not identified in our CC&Rs we must do so only if the majority agrees. Our current situation, saddling owners with the park obligations and associated liability, has never been put to a vote.

Concerned with park deteriorating under County control? Not really, for three reasons. First, I see no evidence the County is unable to maintain the parks properly. Most all parks are maintained by the County and the City of Henderson, are generally in very good condition. This idea appears to be a rumor spread by those with an agenda.

Second, the Association will always pay close attention to the conditions of parks in our community. We have a large political block as a community capable of insisting on quality maintenance.

Third, I’d work to negotiate with the County (a concept I proposed two years ago and which was eventually adopted, albeit distorted by the parks sub-committee) to jointly controlling and contributing (far less than we do today) to the maintenance of our parks.

Q- Why do you say are we not getting the Sports Park promised?

A- Our community's Sports Park was first promised to open in 2008- eleven years ago. It finally opened in May 2018. after having been re-scheduled several times since 2008 with each subsequent promise failing to materialize. Naturally, I am disappointed our SCHA Board sat silently doing nothing over this period.

More importantly, the infrastructure contained in the current Sports Park is drastically less than first promised in 2005. We did not get a 4x baseball complex, lighted, covered stands, and concessions. Nor will we get the two practice baseball fields, a soccer fields, all the basketball courts, and two entrances- all previously promised. (see Our Issues page for more)

The County Commission has short changed our community, while our BOD turned a blind eye to all of the above.

Q- What is this "Agreement for Public Access" being discussed and what happened/did not happen to get us here?

A- The Southern Highland Developer Agreement (SHDA) requires public access easements from the Developer for all parks where Nevada’s Recreational Construction Tax money (a one-time tax on each home paid when the building permit is pulled) is credited to the Developer by the County for park construction. County records indicate about $6.7M of tax dollars have been credited -- but no easements were provided.

Title to the parks in question was transferred from the Developer to the HOA in 2007/2008. Prior to doing so, both per the SHDA and our CC&Rs, the Developer is required to obtain an acknowledged from the HOA in writing affirming (1) it (SHCA) is obligated to perform any unfulfilled terms and conditions of the SHDA and (2) it (SHCA) accepts Owner’s maintenance obligations for each park and paseo. This did not happen.

So today, with title held by the HOA, the Developer is unable to provide the public easement access and is requesting the HOA do so. I believe the agreement our board executed was a huge mistake and voidable. FYI- a similar agreement was previously floated by our Developer and the BOD rejected the agreement.

My objections to the Agreement are:

Title to the parks were inappropriately transferred to the HOA. My research indicates the Board never approved the initial transfer, has shown me proof otherwise, nor more importantly, have owners ever voted to accept the obligations of maintaining the “public” parks in question. The transfer should be voided.
SHCA owners should not be required to pay twice for the maintains of public parks- we already pay property taxes for that purpose.
Our Board's approval to execute this Agreement was done without meeting what I believe are necessary owner acceptance provision in the statutes. Per NRS 116.3112 par 4. “.. the contract would be not enforceable against the association until approved pursuant to subsections 1, 2 and 3” (a majority vote of the owners).
The park deeds (somehow) transferred to the HOA hold terms & conditions I find completely unacceptable. (Read the deed for Goett Park yourself here.)

Our BOD should not be able to obligate owners beyond the authority it has under our CC&Rs to do so, without an owner majority approval vote.

As for how did this happen? Clearly there are a lot of moving parts and big money involved. The County would have me believe its failure to obtain easements was an “error” on its part. I do not buy it. Something certainly happened, but it was not just an "error". If truly an “error”, then we must assume the County failed to conduct required and very basic due diligence. Second, this alleged "error" happen despite an audit of the SHDA by the County identifying a lack of easements in 2011. It was something the County took compliance action on, so it was not just another unread report (watch the County Commission video and read report- agenda #31). Are we now to believe this was forgotten? Finally, the County is required to conduct a review of all development agreements every two years. Here again, the County would have me believe it missed the lack of easements during each review since 2011? So, if you buy all of the excuses, then yes, the above constitutes a mere staff “error”. If not (my camp) them we must assume more is at play.

I also ask, where was our BOD while all this was going on?