Understanding the Ballot Initiatives and What They'd Mean to You

EXPLANATIONS:

​​

Bylaw Changes:   RESIDENTS SPONSORED BY PETITION

 

Initiative # 22 -- Sec. 6.7 Duties of the Board: "Capital Prioritizing Based on Resident Survey Results"   VOTE YES!

This will require the Board to conduct resident surveys up to every 5 yrs. to determine preferences for amenity improvements. They then must follow the residents' desires as opposed to their own when prioritizing spending from the Capital Fund on new projects.

Why we support:

This amendment benefits the needs of residents and puts those most desired Capital Improvement projects first before any others, to assure responsible spending.

​​

​

Master Declaration Changes

​

Initiative # 4 -- Sec. 3.5 d) & e) Capital Contribution Fee  VOTE NO

The Board will be given the power to determine if a transfer of a homeowner's property (as in a trust) was done to avoid paying the Capital Contribution Fee: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Capital Contribution Fee shall be payable if the Board determines, in its sole discretion, that a material purpose of the transfer or conveyance was to avoid payment of the Capital Contribution Fee."

Why we oppose:

Every revision in this amendment is acceptable and equates to trust transactions, except for the last sentence which was added to grant power to the Board to deny a transfer of trust (in order to collect the Capital Contribution fee.). The Board should be required to consult with a trust administrator and not have the sole discretion to reject a transfer based on assumptions of avoidance of fee payment.

​

Initiative # 5 -- Sec 3.8 Delinquent Assessments  VOTE NO

-This amendment INCREASES the penalties to not paying your HOA dues on time and gives the Board more power to foreclose and use unconventional methods for re-payment.
AZ State Law Procedures for Foreclosure:
According to AZ state law, a lien for unpaid assessments automatically attaches to your property if payment is not made within the 30 day limit. Our HOA can then only initiate foreclosure if assessments are overdue for at least 18 months or the unpaid amount reaches $10,000. Up until that time you will be charged a daily interest rate of 16%, which does not count toward meeting the delinquency amount of $10,000. If still unpaid, a notice is sent stating the account is delinquent and will be sent for collection, which could include foreclosure, if not paid within 30 days from date of notice. Once foreclosure commences, you have 90 days to pay up the assessments or your house will foreclose and go to public auction.

AZ HOA Foreclosures: 

AZ HOAs can foreclose on properties for unpaid assessments, with specific rules regarding delinquency amounts and notice requirements. They must follow state laws regarding foreclosure, which include specific requirements for unpaid dues. While HOAs can establish rules within their governing documents, they cannot reduce the statutory redemption period (90 days) or other legal requirements set by state law.

-This amendment writes in the ADDITION that delinquent owners must pay all court, attorney fees and other charges associated with a foreclosure case. It also states the Association may purchase the foreclosed property with HOA funds or borrowed funds, which is not a common practice. The amendment has not specified the state's procedures for foreclosure. The HOA attorney is overreaching in its revision.

Why we oppose:

-This amendment aims to give the Board the power to use HOA funds or borrow to bid on your house in a public auction, which is not customary, while you pay all attorney and court fees. Then it allows them to sell the property.

-This amendment is both sly and damaging, for the following reasons:

1.) The Board is permitted according to SCOV Article of Inc. i & j to 'buy, sell, hold or lease property' and 'borrow funds or obtain a mortgage'. But, Mas. Dec. 2.5 does limit their borrowing power, without a member vote to no more than 3% of 1 year's worth of SCOV net profits (approx. $27K). And Bylaws 6.3b,c&e limits buying and selling without a member vote.

2.) Bylaw Sect. 6.3b does not permit the board without a member vote, "an acquisition of an add'l. capital asset" of more than 10% of 1 year's worth of SCOV net profits (approx. $90K). Then Bylaw Sect. 6.3e states any brokerage business venture of any kind, requires a member vote. But since the Mas. Dec. supersedes, the Bylaws, once Mas. Dec. 3.8 is revised to allow the purchase of a foreclosure property, it would in this case override the Bylaw.

3.) Ordinarily, the Board would be limited to spending $117K ($27K + $90K) to buy your house at auction according to Bylaw 6.3b & Mas. Dec 2.5. It is unlikely it would be sold at that price at auction. However, since the Mas. Dec. trumps all other governing documents (Bylaws, Article of Inc.), and because this amendment to Mas. Dec. 3.8 states they could buy your house if delinquent, there would be no spending limit of funds to do so and no member vote required, because the Mas. Dec. does not specify against it in any of its other provisions (only in its borrowing power and capital improvements).

4.) According to Bylaw Sect. 6.3c, the Board then can sell your property without a member vote, if the amount of sale is 5% less than 1 year of SCOV's net profits, equating to approx. a $45K sales price, which isn't much. But the Board can set a sale price for the property (i.e., $400K) requesting members to approve it in a vote. They could convince members to approve it, to gain add'l. funds for the community and eliminate the asset. They can also prior to sale, renovate the property without a Board vote, using $40K of Operation Funds or with a Board vote using a percentage of the HOA's funds. (The question to ask is why would the HOA care to buy your property? It is unnecessary and stressful to the homeowner and a waste of HOA money and time. It only gives the attorney more billing power to handle the case and its entire process. They make their livings on HOAs.)
-You have the right in AZ to redeem your home after foreclosure by paying off the amount owed to the HOA, including fees and penalties. This right of redemption is time-sensitive (90 days), to contest the foreclosure with options, including negotiating payment plans or seeking mediation. Understanding these laws is crucial for homeowners to navigate the foreclosure process. But, the Board has not clearly defined the parameters of the state foreclosure law procedures in the amendment to Mas. Dec 3.8.

-Note: When asked, the Board stated the amendment is worded without clarifying the foreclosure law, because if the law is revised in the future, they'd need another member vote to amend the changes to the Mas. Dec. But this is not necessarily true, since according to Mas. Dec. Sect. 9.2 & 9.6, state law revisions would not require a member vote to amend into our HOA's governing documents, only a Board vote.

-As originally written Mas. Dec Sect. 3.8 works reasonably according to state law. But its proposed amendments revised by the HOA attorney are harsh and place an infringement on your rights. It is overreaching and only benefits the attorney who will make more money handling the case. This amendment can also be considered damaging to elderly residents aging in place, who may under consequential circumstances not pay their dues in a timely fashion. It places undue hardship on them and their families as a result. Who is the Board working for? You? Or the Attorney? Vote No.

​

Initiative # 10 -- Sec 4.10 Clothes Drying Facilities  NEUTRAL

This now permits outdoor clothes drying, even though not to be visible by neighbors.

Why this is neutral: 

We have not had the ability to hang clothes out to dry in our community since its inception. But by AZ State law we have the 'right to dry' indirectly through our new solar access rights law. Arizona is not classified as a "right to dry" state, meaning there are no laws that automatically void HOA restrictions on clotheslines. If the board chose to void the restriction, they could just remove 4.10 by a board vote. However, they prefer a partial ban, so it requires a member vote to amend the current 4.10 rule. Clothes must not be visible from the street or a neighbor's view. That means they can only be hung on side yards if not visible by a neighbor. If you disagree, Vote No. But there is no requirement to remove the ban altogether because we are not officially a 'right to dry state.' 

 

Initiative # 14 -- Sec. 4.21 Garages  VOTE NO

Removing approved vehicles from being allowed to be stored in a lot with an ARC approved garage.

Why we oppose:  

This is a rule that some got used to. Why change it now? This shows bias to some and disrespect to others. Leave well enough alone. 

 

Initiative # 15 -- Sec 4.22 Motor Vehicles & Equipment  VOTE NO

Adding the allowance of 'routine maintenance' of 'vehicles' on lots and streets within a 4 hr. time period, once per month.

Why we oppose:

Emergencies to vehicles currently may be repaired on lots and streets (i.e. battery change), but now any (unspecified) vehicle will be allowed 'routine maintenance' done within a 4 hr. time period, monthly. 'Routine maintenance' is not defined in this amendment. Neither is the vehicle, as it cross-references Sect. 4.20, which also needs clarification.
What is 'routine maintenance'? Is it car washing or oil changing? We do not care to see people changing their oil on their driveways monthly. That's tacky. We pay dues to keep an aesthetic appeal to the neighborhood, which in turn keeps our property values intact.

This rule ought to define what type of maintenance is permitted and on what type of vehicles. Its' ambiguity will only cause confusion and non-compliance.

The Board's claims it states: "As a convenience to the residents, this will allow routine auto maintenance, that can be done quickly, quietly and cleanly, at their homes taking advantage of the “come to you” vehicle services provided now and also eliminating the need to drive to an auto repair shop/dealership".

However nowhere is this stated in the amendment. Is the attorney composing vague terminology in order to receive a call for interpretation of its meaning to charge more fees?

Note: The Board gave us a reason at the Feb 5th meeting they want to change Sec. 4.22. There are some elderly residents who cannot drive to their shops to have their cars 'maintained'.  So they want to be able to have it done on their driveways. If they cannot drive their vehicle to the auto shop for 'routine maintenance', however that is defined, they should not be driving at all. The board should not create an undefined arbitrary rule, but find a solution to assist these elderly folks with specific hardships, individually. And, they ought to re-write this rule to be more clearly defined.

​

Initiative # 16 -- Sec 4.27 Renting  VOTE NO

Changes the terms, procedures and requirements for renting Homeowner property.

Why we oppose: 

This creates a lot of unnecessary additional paper work for those who rent their properties to snowbirds. It also places an indirect stipulation that a Resident cannot have a roommate and charge rent. In addition, the rule states only 10% of houses may be rented, which must be registered on a list, whether rented or not. This limits others (not on the list) from being able to rent at specified times.The procedure works fine as it is without amendments.

 

Initiative # 19 - Sec. 6.1 e) Easement & Right of Enjoyment of Common Area  VOTE NO

Adds the stipulation for the number of allowable Facility Use Cards, free and purchased. Although not a newly stated rule (BOD Policy ADM-010), it is a new addition to the Master Declaration.

Why we oppose: 

This is unnecessary and redundant. The rule and system (BOD Policy ADM-010) as is, works fine and doesn't need to be listed in the Master Declaration. Once placed in the Master Declaration, if altered in the future, it would require the hassle of another member vote.  

​

Initiative # 13 - Mas Dec Sect. 4.20 Parking  VOTE NO

Now allows vehicles described as: 'passenger vehicles', unspecified types of 'trucks', and 'trucks with camper shells' with no height limits to park on driveways without blocking sidewalks, at all times. The Handbook Rule states no parking (for all vehicles) on streets overnight is allowed, except for RV's for 72 hours per month.

Why we oppose:

• The 'unspecified' notated 'trucks' of any height, will be allowed to be parked on driveways at all times. This will obstruct views, create visual eyesores to the community, and cause safety hazards when entering and exiting from driveways, streets and garages.

• This is an infringement on Del Webb's master open plan concept and vision for the Community. It changes the dynamics of the neighborhood, creating visual eyesores, resulting in lower property values.

• Our houses are built on different grade levels, slopes and hills. This creates driving visibility and safety problems, especially on streets with upward hills.

• This unlimited vehicle height increase is in direct conflict with the Development Standards Sect. 2.18 / 6 rule. Hedges near driveways or street corners are kept at 3'-6" high for visual safety when driving (or walking). Vehicles of an unlimited height parked on driveways, causes an identical visual interference as hedges with no height limit.

• This height change is in direct conflict to Master Declaration 4.19, 4.23a & Development Standards 2.3 restricting front yard walls 20 ft. of the front property line to be 3'-6" high and side yard walls 6'-0" high, for visibility of open lots, per Del Webb's open plan concept to maximize views. Trucks will interfere with views.

• This amendment does NOT specify what KIND of "truck" is allowed, as in only pick-up trucks. There are many types of trucks and some can reach up to 13 ft. high. Do you want a 13 ft. high truck parked in your neighbor's driveway blocking your viewing ability? This initiative is written sloppy, esp. in regard to the specification of vehicle types and their heights.

• The Board needs to use logic and practicality in amending this rule. They'd need to cite a height limit that accommodate today's standard sizes of pick-up trucks (which usually are no higher than 7'-6" to 7'-8" at the most, in lieu of arbitrarily eliminating the 7'-0" height restriction entirely, to allow any and every height (and truck type) imaginable potentially blocking views and creating safety hazards. They'd also need to define and limit the trucks to be solely pick-up trucks, and not work or box trucks which are 8 ft. to 13 ft high.

• The Board is playing favorites here to accommodate their friends with larger vehicles. They are not thinking of the repercussions it could create to the entire community, consisting of smaller houses and lots, with varying street grade levels. Their duty is to work for the benefit of every homeowner, not hold to their own personal agendas. If there are special circumstances with unnecessary hardship, they can be addressed on an individual basis per variances to the rule.

BELOW:
~  2026 Handbook Rule on Parking: No overnight parking on streets

​~   Amendment changes in red to Master Dec Sect 4.20