The information and facts talked about inside the article are several of the most beneficial offered.
Thank you Dennis for all that you are doing and your comment above.
The Limited Purpose Association concept could be applied to existing communities, but they would have to amend their Declarations, which is exceedingly challenging of course. But, theoretically, it is possible in some cases. Accomplishing similar was my brief Norma Rae-esque fantasy at one stage in my HOA ordeal. I did speak with a Planning official in my town who told me that there was “no requirement” that an HOA exist in the case of mine (in part because it was not part of a larger, master association). She also informed me about a nearby similarly-aged development that is, in fact, only a “Landscape Association.”
I am for anything — Improvement Districts, Landscape Associations, anything — to stop the CC&Rs extortion racket and the high-stakes abuse of innocent good-faith homeowners like me.
I also don’t think critical infrastructure like public roads should be in the purview of an HOA, but that is a whole ‘nother huge topic. I now, mercifully, live in a non-HOA neighborhood; the City repaved our roads about a year-and-a-half ago, the street sweeper comes by every week, the trash gets picked up, the sewers are tended, etc. It works great, and I don’t have to be tormented and threatened by psycho board members, unscrupulous management companies, and crooked HOA lawyers.
In Nevada, an alternative to the standard-issue HOA — per Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS 116) and Nevada Administrative Code (NAC 116) — is the “Limited Purpose Association.”
Here’s some information:
NAC 116.090 “Limited-purpose association” interpreted. (NRS 116.1201, 116.615)
1. An association is a limited-purpose association pursuant to subparagraph (1) of paragraph (a) of subsection 6 of NRS 116.1201 if:
(a) The association has been created for the sole purpose of maintaining the common elements consisting of landscaping, public lighting or security walls, or trails, parks and open space;
(b) The declaration states that the association has been created as a landscape maintenance association; and
(c) The declaration expressly prohibits:
(1) The association, and not a unit’s owner, from enforcing a use restriction against a unit’s owner;
(2) The association from adopting any rules or regulations concerning the enforcement of a use restriction against a unit’s owner; and
(3) The imposition of a fine or any other penalty against a unit’s owner for a violation of a use restriction.
2. An association is a limited-purpose association pursuant to subparagraph (2) of paragraph (a) of subsection 6 of NRS 116.1201 if the association is created for the sole purpose of maintaining:
(a) Areas on an official plat that are designated as unsuitable for building;
(b) Areas required by the governing body to be designated as floodways, natural drainage or spillways; or
(c) Other areas that the governing body requires to be used for the purpose of collecting, facilitating, retaining or channeling storm water drainage of the residential property of the common-interest community.
3. An association is a limited-purpose association pursuant to subparagraph (3) of paragraph (a) of subsection 6 of NRS 116.1201 if:
(a) The association has been created as a rural agricultural residential common-interest community;
(b) The residential lots in the common-interest community are a minimum of 1 acre and are zoned for agricultural purposes by the county in which the community is located; and
(c) The governing documents of the association authorize the residents to farm or raise livestock on the residential lots.
4. As used in this section:
(a) “Governing body” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 278.015.
(b) “Landscaping” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 278.4781.
(c) “Public lighting” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 278.4783.
(d) “Security wall” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 271.203.
(e) “Trails, parks and open space” means trails, parks and open space that provide a substantial public benefit or are required by the governing body for the primary use of the public. The term does not include a private street or roadway, gated entry, swimming pool, gazebo, clubhouse, pond, tennis court, miniature golf course or frisbee golf course.
(f) “Use restriction” means any provision of the governing documents of an association that restricts a unit’s owner in the use of his or her unit.
(Added to NAC by Real Estate Div. by R114-99, eff. 5-5-2000; A by Comm’n for Common-Interest Communities by R129-04, 4-14-2005; R205-05, 9-18-2006)
Thanks Jenn for your comment. While I’m constantly searching other state statutes for possible relevance and applicability for Arizona. This concept would apply mostly for what we call Property Owners associations in Rural Arizona, that are currently governed under Planned community statutes. The one concern is the primary expense for our property owners associations are roads and road maintenance is excluded in Nevada’s Limited purpose associations. While the concept is interesting any attempt to create such an option could never be applied to existing communities and I cannot see a major land owner subdividing his/her land and creating an organization with maintenance responsibility with covenants that are not enforceable by the association. Our improvement district would not have an association providing the maintenance it would have a municipality, and covenant enforcement would be done by homeowners just like your limited purpose association.
Thank you for the detailed and informative reply. So if I understand correctly, if a term limit law were to be enacted in 2019 that limited a Board member’s service to 20 total years, one would have to wait 20 more years from 2019 before a current Board of Director who is in their 20th year of service would be affected by a term limit law due to Article 2 Section 25 of the Arizona Constitution? I personally think 20 years is an excessive amount of time to serve on a Board, especially alongside other long-serving entrenched members who exhibit a bunker mentality. I am familiar with HOA’s that have Board members who have over 20 years of service.
If a term limit bill was crafted with a high limit threshold for years of service, such as 10 years, I think it would have a good chance of passing. Such a bill would help those rare communities that are small in size, have a low turnover of homeowners and entrenched Boards that are difficult to challenge. Arizona has a very transient population and a generally high turnover rate of homeowners in HOA’s. Most HOA’s in this state are on the medium to large size in number of homeowners and thus a term limit law would not negatively affect the majority of homeowners in HOA’s, because due to these structural factors, there is high probability of a good supply of capable, conscientious Board members willing to serve. I have studied the pros and cons of term limits and that’s why I specifically think a high limit on years of service is a good way to strike a balance between reducing entrenched Boards and keeping good Board members.
Again, thank you for your reply and I hope you or others will re-consider drafting such a term limit proposal.
Actually if a term limit bill were to be passed it would apply to any board member in office on the effective date of the law. So if on that effective date a board member had already served for 5 years with 2 year individual terms and the established term limit was 6 years than he could not run for a new term after his current term expired. The retroactive prohibition in a case like this would say that if a board member had already served 7 years with two year terms and the term limit was 6 years, he/she would not be forced out of office prior to the expiration of his/her current term. He/she could not run for an additional term however after this current term expired.
In addition any typical term limit bill would also establish how many years an individual would have to wait until they can run again.
The state has 8 year term limits for Senators and Representatives in their respective house, but what many of them do is simply run for the other house and start over again. Legislators in this way can serve for life if they keep getting elected.
I don’t disagree with your position, like I said earlier I actually drafted a term limit proposal at one time, however I believe that there are higher priorities that need to be addressed to protect true transparency in association transactions, duties and responsibilities of boards, election integrity, enforcement of rules and regulation , resale disclosure, and foreclosure protections and so forth. Let’s see what we can get passed in the next couple of sessions before we re-look at the value of this issue. Remember if we can get honest and free elections the people can today establish their own term limits by simply not voting for board members who are not meeting the needs of the community.
First of all, it is against the Arizona Constitution to make any bill retroactive. I debated a term limit bill for some time now and last year actually drafted such a bill. I decided not to attempt to get it sponsored because of the negative aspect of such a bill. While term limits will surely help communities with board members that are entrenched and lose sight of the needs and desires of their community members, but it will also force good conscientious board members off the boards. Finding and keeping good board members is vital to community health. I decided to approach this issue from a different direction. This year I have a bill proposal for the 2019 session that will force association to hold elections every year for any board position who’s term has expired especially in those communities with exorbitant quorum requirement. Many communities have used the inability to meet a quorum requirement in the initial attempt to satisfy the annual member meeting requirement as a way to actually avoid having an election. We have some communities where a quorum of the board has been in place for 17 years without ever holding an election. This core group then fills any vacancies by appointments of their friends who once again are never subjected to an election. My bill will force any board member off the board after his/her term has expired unless they are re-elected by the members. I have also address the process of removing board members, if they are not meeting the needs of the community. While this particular bill will do many other things, and will be our top priority for this upcoming legislative session, it will be one of 4 comprehensive bills all aimed at empowering the Arizona homeowners to provide checks and balances in the governance and operation of their communities. We will provide for consequences for any board or management company that fails to comply with the law, without overburdening any community boards who are really trying to serve their communities. I’ll be providing legislative updates on the details of each of these bill soon to all our members, and will post the full language of each bill on this site once they are introduced by a legislator.
Please allow me the opportunity in this post to remind everyone that while I spend a tremendous amount of time and energy developing these proposal and promoting these bills face to face with every legislator that I can, I still need a membership of sufficient numbers to get the legislator’s attention. Joining our coalition is free, but is essential to truly be able to present our case against the highly funded HOA industry represented by CAI and AACM. Each of those organizations spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year supporting elections campaigns and paying for their highly respected professional lobbying firms. While we work for the 3.5 million homeowners in this state until our numbers actually approach the 10,000 member level , the Industry money will speak louder than our membership to these politicians. Not to say in any way that politicians are bought but rather until we can demonstrate with our membership following that we truly represent a voice of constituents in their districts we will not be taken seriously. So please if anyone out their sees our site or this post take 2 minutes to join our numbers and help us help all of you. Tell your friends and neighbors about us and help spread the word.
From Bed Bugson
That all depends of what your CC&R’s say. if it can be proved that occupants of a unit caused an insect infestation that impacted other units and the CC&R’s allow for such provisions that the aggrieving unit owner could be required to pay for the treatment. If the CC&R’s address these type of things then the association would most likely take action to treat the infestation and bill the owner of the unit that initiated to issue. Like all things in an Condo, the board is usually not compelled to take action, but it they do take their responsibility seriously they will and if they cannot figure out who caused the infestation simply bill all the unit owners impacted for that service. The laws allow a board to assess either the individual unit owner that caused the impact to common property, or if that cannot be positively determined all the unit owners impacted by the issue for that treatment. While beds are not common property the bed bugs would not be limited to simply the beds in a unit and will migrate from unit to unit,
If I were you I would never wait for a board to take action on an issue like this I would treat my unit as soon as possible and if the association attempts to take action in the future show them that you have already taken action and they need not treat your unit unless you want them to again.
I’d need to see the declaration and the specific provision that allows private property to be used and maintained by the community. This clearly is an unusual situation. While the association is free to establish rules on the use of common property including permitting and identification they would not normally have authority to establish rules on the use of private property even if that property was maintained by the community. Requiring anyone to wear a badge on private property could never be construed as an architectural standard like paint color or length of front laws grass. If you have your CC&R’s electronically send them to me at firstname.lastname@example.org and I’ll look them over and get back to you.
Awesome insight. Thanks Dennis. Much appreciated
Thank you Dennis! This is extremely helpful.
To the best on my knowledge there has never been a conversion of an existing HOA to an Improvement District. First the municipality would have to allow improvement districts in their zoning ordinances, and to my knowledge Gilbert is the only municipality to do that. We tried to pass legislation to require municipalities to allow this option for developers in their zoning regulations for two years and were not successful at getting those bills passed. This coming session we will focus on other priorities and go after this in another year. To make this happen the community would have to take a vote to end the association, then ask for the municipality to accept their community as an improvement district. The association would have to vote to transfer title for all the common property to the municipality and to change the CC&R’s to eliminate the association and assessments to an improvement district and an advolurum tax to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the common property. Not an easy process but in our perspective a worthwhile objective for many communities.
If you have any more question just let me know
What is your coalition’s position on term limits for HOA Board of Directors? Do you think your coalition would have a good chance at persuading... Read More