Las Vegas HOA rules change on getting bids for work

Q: I have been on the board of Sun City Summerlin for more than three years. My term is up in February, and I will not run again for at least a year and probably longer. I am not a politician and cannot stand the lying and back-stabbing that goes on.

I have a question. You may even use it in your column if you choose. I read it faithfully.

The previous version of Nevada Revised Statutes 116.31086 essentially required all homeowners association projects to have three bids. Our association got three bids for almost everything from a $6,000 piece of fitness equipment to a $25,000 security car to a $100,000 repaving contract. All bids were opened publicly at an HOA board meeting and read aloud into the record.

As of July 1 that law was changed per Assembly Bill 238 to only require three bids on projects that exceed 1 percent of our annual budget. We have very few, if any, projects that would exceed that amount. It seems to me that we do not have to get bids on those that are less. Is that correct? Why would the Legislature make the requirements of openness less stringent by allowing closed or no bids on so many items?

For the record, I will fight to continue our process of open bidding on almost all items.

A: Can I answer by simply saying that the legislators did not have a clue as to what the ramifications would be when they passed this law? Anyone in community management could see the problem from the get-go. The legislators were trying to establish some safety nets and had a difficult time in proposing a law that would fit the communities under 1,000 units and those communities over 1,000 units.

There were three different bills introduced into the Legislature dealing with expenses — and all were greatly flawed. The legislators don't understand that associations are more than enforcement "agencies" of rules and regulations, but they are also businesses that need to be managed in an efficient manner.

In their effort to protect homeowners from unnecessary spending (something that our legislators have yet to learn in running our state), they proposed this 1 percent figure as opposed to establishing some dollar amount for the communities over 1,000 units and 3 percent for those under 1,000 units. Neither one of the percentage limits makes operational sense. In one case, it prohibits an association from addressing issues in a timely manner because the dollar amount is so low that it would require obtaining bids in the smaller associations, and in the second case, it does not protect the homeowners because the 1 percent of the larger budgets translates into thousands of dollars that can be spent without obtaining bids.

Unfortunately, associations will have to live with the new laws until the 2017 Legislature with the hopes that we can change the law with some common sense proposals.

Q: I recently purchased a small condo unit that would be perfect for an executive or short-term rental. My condo rules and regulations stipulate the tenant must have a written lease not less than a six-month period, and they require a copy of that lease. The executive rental agent informs me that short-term leasing arrangements are permissible in Las Vegas and the condo's rule concerning a six-month lease is unenforceable. Can the condo association impose fines for this rule violation?

A: Your real estate agent is wrong. First, you should check your community rules, as most covenants will have a specific section stating that any lease or rental agreement cannot be less than six months. Second, even NRS 116.335 and NRS 116.340 states that no lease or rental agreement can be less than 30 days.

Your association can fine you for violating this requirement.

Barbara Holland, certified property manager, broker and supervisory certified association manager, is president and owner of H&L Realty and Management Co. Questions may be sent to the Association Q&A, P.O. Box 80360, Las Vegas, NV 89180. Fax is 702-385-3759, email is support@hlrealty.com.