January 23, 2019 at 6:17 pm #23888Gary WolkParticipant
Vote against the By-Law changes. Why? You are currently subject to a $1200 Special Assessment imposed by the Somersett Owner’s Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD). If you read the CCR’s for SOA, this is impossible. Article 3 (Assessments) Section 5 (Special Assessments) clearly states that the Board cannot impose a Special Assessment (without a vote of the owners) of more than 25% of your annual assessment (for 2018, that would be $92 * 12 * .25 = $276). SO WHY ARE YOU PAYING A $1200 Special Assessment? Because Nevada Law overrides ANYTHING that is in the By-Laws or any other governing document. And Nevada Revised Statute 116, Section 3115 Subparagraph (b) (NRS 116.3114(b)) states:
Notwithstanding any provision of the governing documents to the contrary, to establish adequate reserves pursuant to this paragraph, including, without limitation, to establish or carry out a funding plan, the executive board may, without seeking or obtaining the approval of the units’ owners, impose any necessary and reasonable assessments against the units in the common-interest community.
As it turns out, our CCR’s also have the “25%” limit (See Section 3.03) on special assessments, good luck with that.
Now our Board has seen fit to spend more of our money to get a letter from Ms. Zanetti telling us how wonderful our Board is because it seeks to limit an “expense”, which, by NRS 116, is unlimited! How did that work out with the limit on Special Assessments?
While it is clear that a great deal of effort has gone into the By-law changes, it is also apparent that this effort is in many ways “sloppy” and deceptive. The “Summary of Significant Changes” that most residents of Sierra Canyon will take as a “good faith” representation of the numerous pages of changes which follow, conveniently does not mention the unnecessary expansion of Board powers in Section 9.01. It also fails to point out that an owner right granted by the original By-Laws, that of cumulative voting (Section 4.05(e)), has been taken away.
The definition of the Master Declaration is removed, yet it is repeatedly referred to. Does this make the document easier to read?
Committee meetings are currently governed by Article 8, which has been stricken in the revision. This would imply that there will now be no obligation to notify owners of committee meetings.
Repeatedly, it is stated that the revisions are being changed to be consistent with Nevada Revised Statute 116. Yet this statute is open to revision at both regular and special sessions of the legislature. Does this mean we will revise the By-laws every time the legislature meets? That would be ridiculous. Every governing document clearly states that it is subservient to “The Act”, meaning the Nevada Revised Statutes.
Finally, there are areas where the changes outright misinterpret NRS 116. For example, NRS 116.2117 subsection 5 states “Amendments to the declaration required by this chapter to be recorded by the association must be prepared, executed, recorded and certified on behalf of the association by any officer of the association designated for that purpose or, in the absence of designation, by the president of the association”. Our “new” by-laws now have both the Secretary and the President doing a job only one of them needs to do!
I would strongly recommend that owners vote to reject these changes. The removal of “Declarant” references would have made the by-laws easier to read and understand, but this effort goes well beyond that objective. And not in a good way! By-Laws, those not created by Developers, should ONLY contain provisions that clarify the associations organization ( i.e. notification of committee meetings) and the provision of rights to owners NOT specifically granted by NRS 116 (i.e. cumulative voting).January 26, 2019 at 12:01 pm #23951Janet SchaperParticipant
Thank you for this excellent article. I am interested in hearing specific details from the Board about why they have suspended voting. Especially the claim of: “inaccurate information circulating”. Seems like this is pretty accurate. It would also seem that the owners SHOULD talk about and propose alternate points of view from the Board itself, and also Ms. Zanetti. Everybody should have the prerogative of reading all commentary, and making their decision based on that.January 27, 2019 at 9:51 am #23952Harold AllredParticipant
Gary, you make a lot of very good points. I always find it interesting how capable and enlightened folks come out of the woodwork AFTER all the effort has been done to accomplish something. It sounds like (without you actually saying so) that you think we should go back to the drawing board on the by-law update project.
With all these holes in them you point out I tend to agree. I really appreciate you speaking up on your discoveries and would hope that if we can do this again you would be willing to be at the workshop(s) with your expertise. You know the old saying………….”If you want something done right………………………”
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.