Homeowners can display political signs with some conditions

A: Under Nevada Revised Statute 116.325, neither the board nor the governing documents of an association can prohibit a unit’s owner or an occupant of a unit from exhibiting one or more political signs within the physical portion of the association that the owner or the occupant has a right to occupy and use exclusively subject to the following conditions:

■ The political signs must not be larger than 24-inches-by-36-inches.

■ If the unit is occupied by the tenant, the unit owner may not exhibit any political sign unless the tenant consents in writing to the exhibition of the political sign.

■ All political signs are subject to the law governing the posting of the political sign (city or county ordinance).

■ A unit owner or occupant may exhibit as many political signs as desired but may not exhibit more than one political sign for each candidate or political party or ballot question.

■ A political sign is defined as meaning a sign that expresses support for or opposition to a candidate, political party or ballot question in any federal, state or local election or any election of an association.

As to the your question, as long as the above requirements are followed, an owner or occupant can display their political signs.

Q: I recently bought into a gated town house community with more than 100 buildings. Each building contains three units. Each building has an address light and unit number lights at the front facade. There’s also a unit number light near each front door. I noticed that my unit number lights were not lit (at sunset) and have tried to find out who’s responsible for maintaining these exterior lights. The HOA board has verbally told me that those exterior lights are the responsibility of each homeowner. When I read the covenants, conditions and restrictions and bylaws, the only exterior lighting that is mentioned are “coach lights,” which are near the backyard patios and balconies. There is no interior switch or fuse boxes to control these lights.

The other night, I drove around the complex and there were too many of these exterior lights (address and unit lights) out to count. To me, these exterior lights are courtesy directional signs, like pool and recreational center signs. I plan on bringing this issue up at our next HOA meeting, but want to hear as many views as I can beforehand. Thank you.

A: You sent me the maintenance section of your CC&Rs. Under Article 9, section 9.1.g.1, the association shall be responsible for the maintenance of “coach lights” at or near the front door of the unit and the replacement of burned out light bulbs and broken fixtures on such “coach lights.”

You sent me a photograph of the exterior lighting that shows the address of the unit by the front door. This is the “coach lights” that was described in the CC&Rs, which states that the association is responsible for maintaining, including the replacement of the lights.

Q: Our board, this past week, awarded landscaping contracts in excess of $175,000 at a board meeting. These bids were awarded to a landscaping company for landscape rejuvenation. They were the only bidders on the projects. The homeowners were told that request for proposals were sent out to three potential bidders and only the company awarded the bid submitted a bid. No information was provided on who the other potential bidders were and no effort at all seemed to have been made to ascertain that at least three bids were obtained.

This bidding process, where only on one company submits bids, seems to be the norm with our board. I have never actually seen where they have said they requested more than three bids, if in fact, they have. It is well-known who they have selected to do the work before it is even put out for bid. They choose the present landscaping company, which I believe has actually set up the process, including the drawings, for the bid. They are not paid to do this but seem to do so with the expectation that they will be awarded the bid. In other words, I believe the fix seems to be in.

If not a direct violation of Sec. 116 this certainly appears to be against the spirit of the statute. Competition has actually been eliminated and our homeowners may well be paying exorbitant prices for services.

Is there advice you could provide that will help us deal with this seemingly disregard for the spirit, if not the letter of the statute? I have spoken to at least 20 homeowners and one board member, who feel exactly the same way I do. We have spoken up at meetings on these matters, only to be totally dismissed.

A: NRS 116.31086 states that if an association solicits bids for a project, the association must, whenever reasonably possible, solicit at least three bids if the project is expected to cost more than 3 percent or more of the annual budget for associations with less than 1,000 units or if the cost is expected to more than 1 percent of the annual budget for associations over 1,000 units. The bids must be opened and read aloud at a board meeting. Association projects include, without limitation, maintenance; repair; replacement; restoration of the common elements; or professional services, such as accounting, engineering and legal services.

In the your case, the board should announce which companies were asked to submit a bid. You can contact the Nevada Real Estate Division to discuss this matter with the board and management company to determine if other companies were asked to submit a bid.

NOTE: With this quarantine, many of my readers have asked how to reach the Nevada Real Estate Division if they have any questions or problems. Please contact them via their in box at cicombudsman@red.nv.gov.

Barbara Holland is a certified property manager (CPM) and holds the supervisory community manager certificate with the state of Nevada. She is an author and educator on real estate management. Questions may be sent to holland744o@gmail.com.