2026 BALLOT: Understanding What the Board's Initiatives Really Mean.
- VOICE of SCOV
- Jan 28
- 16 min read
Updated: Mar 6
Updated: 2/8/26
More than a handful of this year's proposed amendments to our Governing Documents alter the nature of their governance. They actually either infringe on your rights as Homeowners or impede on Del Webb's original vision for our Community's design standards. The rest are unnecessary "scrivener" error changes, that don't matter and only help the SCOV attorney put money in his pocket. We advise to simply vote AGAINST them all, with the exception of # 22, a Resident Sponsored Ballot Initiative one that helps, not hinders Homeowners.
Keep it simple and
Please Oppose All Initiatives
Except # 22
To Read
"An Analysis of the 2026 (21) Ballot Initiatives"
Presented by Informed Homeowners of SCOV
For a pdf list of
"2025 Changes in the Law Affecting AZ HOA's"
Initiative # 22 - Support
#22 is a Resident Sponsored Ballot Initiative, which instructs the Board to prioritize amenity improvement spending from our Capital Fund to be based on Resident Surveys conducted at least every five years.
Scroll down for explanations on # 22
and all other negatively altering Initiatives to our Governing Documents.
~~ ALERT ~~
NOTE: These are our recommendations for voting based on thorough research and foresight. Included are Con statements opposing specific Board Initiatives.
The Mar 3rd Board Forum presenting the 21 Initiatives did not mention the key elements that alter the nature of the documents, not in your favor. They were left out.
The Board typically does not permit Pro / Con ballot measure argument debates during election periods. They have a track record for fending any opposition to 'their agendas' with rhetoric. This practice may change as new, more equitable Board Members are elected who will serve, you the Homeowner with complete transparency.
If you attended the March 3rd Initiative Board Forums or viewed their opposing Power Point presentations, please disregard the information presented relating to these 9 initiatives AND Initiative #22. They do not work equitably for you as a Homeowner, nor for the betterment of the Community as a whole.
For additional reading:
See the Topics page: "A Board Led Astray...By HOA Lawyers?"
See the Blog Page: "The CAI Could Be Assuming Control of Your HOA"
ON THE BALLOT
Please Oppose All Ballot Initiatives
Except
Initiative # 22 - Support
Initiative 22 - Amends Bylaw Sec 6.7 to regulate Capital Fund spending on amenity improvements to be based on resident surveys. - Support
Resident Sponsored Ballot Initiative
# 22 helps Homeowners
Bylaw Changes:
Initiative # 22 - "Capital Fund Prioritizing Based on Resident Survey Results" - Support
Initiative # 22 evolved from a resident petition containing over 10% of the community's required signatures. As a resident sponsored ballot initiative, it is one that will help homeowners.
Initiative #22 amends SCOV's Bylaw 6.2: "The Duties of the Board" by adding a new section 6.2 (g). This amendment prioritizes and requires any Board spending of our 'Capital Fund' for amenity improvements to be based on resident preferences and usage needs, expressed in community surveys, performed up to every 5 years.
What this Initiative will do:
It ensures that the board listens and carefully considers the wishes of all residents, not just some.
It will place the first two most desired amenity improvements from the 2023 survey, (a new pool upgrade and designated walking paths) for top consideration, not the least desired amenity (additional art studio space).
It will take into consideration that the $1000 assessment to help pay for the Copper Center project renovations was rejected by a Member vote. It will redirect current funding to the Capital Fund on the more affordable most desired amenity improvements.
The 5 yr. plan for the Capital Fund is designated solely to the overpriced Copper Center plan and nothing else. It could slow down the overspending on this one and only plan concept and compel the Board to explore other alternative plans to meet the demands of additional artist studio space, with more cost-effective solutions.
It will reserve any additional savings to the Capital Fund to other improvements, not just to the Copper Center.
It will help to open the lines of communication between the Board and residents, and resident to resident.
Why we support:
Initiative # 22 could help to assure that extravagant overspending of our community's financial resources is restrained and kept at realistic levels. It could help to guarantee that proper budgets are established with practical results for the projects most requested and needed, determined by real time data driven residency space utilization (not board beliefs, desires or inefficient and biased surveys).
The surveys would need to be handled professionally, written with specific questions in regard to current and future condition needs and appropriate financial feasibility and sustainability. No longer would they ask residents for "pie in the sky" WANTS vs. basic NEEDS. They could be strongly recommended and highly advertised (and could potentially be sent to each address with a return envelope to promise completed responses by 90% of the homeowners).
Often the groups assigned by the Board, who get involved in our amenity upgrading projects tend to look at them as having limitless funds, where money is no object, where the sky is the limit. This could curb that sort of spending at more operable levels.
Why is this a good thing? Because the more our monies are spent down, the higher our HOA's dues could be, and the more likely future assessments would incur. This as a result, according to basic real estate, lowers the values of our properties. When HOA dues are set at higher rates, the houses sell at lower rates.
Explanations on why the following
Board Initiatives infringe on the Community or are unnecessary busy work
to pay the attorney.
NOTE:
Some of the revisions to our Governing Documents, at first glance appear to be minor revisions. But once studied, are worded with hidden motives allowing the board partiality and power under the heels of residents. Legal terminology written with non-specific, ambiguous language, allows varied interpretations by lawyers, who make money explaining the law. It's standard practice to consult with them for clarification, but lacks integrity to explore ways to stretch the law.
Please Oppose All Initiatives #'s listed above
Master Declaration Changes:
Initiative # 2 - Sec. 2.6 Association Membership - Oppose
- This amendment clarifies that only the Trustees of lots held in Trusts are eligible for member rights such as voting or serving on the board. This disallows Homeowners with irrevocable (non-changeable) Trusts not listed as the Trustees, as qualified for Member privileges.
Sec. 2.6: "In the event a Lot shall be held in Trust, the Trustee is the legal title holder of the Lot, and shall be considered the Member, as well as a designated Permanent Resident."
Typically, Associations are permitted to set reasonable qualifications in their governing documents for Members to serve on the board or vote. By owning a titled property in an HOA you automatically become a rightful Member of the Association, as defined in AZ ARS 33-2001.
In the case of holding property in a Trust however, the Trustee is typically recognized as the legal owner of the property, not the beneficiaries, unless determined by the Association's governing documents. To correct the issue, with a revocable Trust, the residents in question can be added as Trustees to gain the right to serve on the board or vote. This revision is not essential. So why was it amended?
Why we oppose:
- This amendment is unnecessary since a majority of homes in SCOV are not held in Trusts. If they are, the owners typically are listed as the Trustees. And, Trusts are typically revocable. CA has a Civil Code 1505(b) that spells out distinctly an owner holding property in a Trust must be a Trustee to serve on the board or vote. But in AZ the laws that might be applicable (ARS Title 14, ARS 33-2001 & the AZ Planned Communities Act) are vague and open to interpretation by lawyers. By stipulating it into the governing documents, it then sets precedence. But the question is, why does the board feel this addition is needed? To justify paying the attorney for busy work or something else?
- The amendment line: "the Trustee is the legal title holder of the Lot, and shall be considered the Member, as well as a "designated Permanent Resident" appears dubious. What exactly is a 'designated Permanent Resident' in relation to the Trustee? The rightful property owner? An owner of property with voting rights? Why was this notation added and what does it signify? Below is our speculation:
1 - There are many houses sitting empty in SCOV not on the market for sale. The Members may have passed or moved away. They would be owned by either the original residents who are living away, beneficiaries, heirs or Trusts, all with or without voting rights. These house lots, by assumption are most likely Not voting in SCOV elections. By designating them as "Permanent Residents", this could emphasize that absent qualified Trustees, heirs and beneficiaries not residing in the house have the right to vote. Why would this be important? Is the aim to entice more votes for board initiatives and agendas? All the Admin. has to do is send them an electronic ballot with propaganda on how to vote. Is this amendment necessary?
Initiative # 4 -- Sec. 3.5 d) & e) Capital Contribution Fee - Oppose
-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: Sec. 3.5: "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:
-The last sentence in this revision, was added to try to grant the Board the power to deny a transfer of trust (in order to collect the Capital Contribution fee). The HOA law, ARS #33-442 prohibits the imposition of transfer fees on property transactions, as within a family, or other name change. This will be unenforceable by the Board. This Initiative needs to be opposed.
Initiative # 5 -- Sec 3.8 Delinquent Assessments - Oppose
-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 laws (i.e., 2025 changes to ARS 33-1807) 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, by following follow state foreclosure laws which include specific requirements for unpaid dues and notices to members. While HOAs can establish rules within their governing documents, they cannot reduce the statutory redemption period (of 90 days) or other legal requirements set by state law."
-This amendment to Sec. 3.8 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 AZ'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.
-The SCOV Handbook states Community Leaders have the responsibility to: "Initiate foreclosure proceedings ONLY as a last resort". This change to Mas Dec Sec 3.8 contradicts this statement. Foreclosure proceedings would be commenced as instructed in the state foreclosure law, not as a last resort.
-This amendment is both sly and damaging, for the following reasons:
1.) The Board is permitted according to SCOV Article of Incorp. i & j to: 'buy, sell, hold or lease property' and 'borrow funds or obtain a mortgage'. Mas. Dec. 2.5 limits their borrowing power, without a member vote to no more than 3% of 1 year's worth of SCOV net profits (in the amt. of approx. $27K). And Bylaws 6.3b,c&e also 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 (the amt. of 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 Incorp.), 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 HOA funds.)
-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, non-significant 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 reads reasonably according to current 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?
Initiative # 10 -- Sec 4.10 Clothes Drying Facilities Neutral - Oppose or Support
This now permits outdoor clothes drying, even though not to be visible by neighbors.
Why we are opposing, but you may support:
We have not had the ability to hang clothes out to dry in our community since its inception. But by AZ State law we now 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 will automatically void HOA restrictions on clotheslines. The board needs a member vote to revise Sec 4.10 in any way.
Their revision states clothes drying will be allowed, but cannot be visible by neighbors from streets or yards. It creates a partial prohibition to the law. Visibility is defined as 6 ft. high along all property lines. This will be impossible in SCOV due to our smaller sized lots. Not many house lots will have areas that are not visible from neighbors yards or streets. This revision therefore is in conflict with the new state law which does not impose visibility restrictions at all. Oppose this amendment so they can go back and revise the rule without visibility restrictions, or keep it as is with no clothes drying permitted. Support if you want to try to get away with clothes drying without being seen from your neighbors. The 'rules' are typically not enforced in SCOV, unless your neighbors complain.
Initiative # 14 -- Sec. 4.21 Garages - Oppose
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 - Oppose
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 type of vehicle, as it cross-references Sect. 4.20 on parking, which also needs clarification. -What is 'routine maintenance'? Is it car washing or oil changing? A majority of residents in any neighborhood do not care to see people changing their oil on driveways permitted monthly. Residents expect SCOV's Development Standards are followed and expect 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 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 outlined 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, on an individual basis. And, they ought to re-write this rule to be more clearly defined.
Initiative # 16 -- Sec 4.27 Renting - Oppose
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. 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 - Oppose
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. Its rule and system (stated in 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 - Oppose
This change will allow vehicles described as: 'passenger vehicles', unspecified types of 'trucks', and 'trucks with camper shells' of unlimited heights to park on driveways without blocking sidewalks, at all times. Recreational vehicles (RV's) large and small, such as fifth wheelers and mobile homes, are not allowed on driveways permanently and must be removed after 72 hours. 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:
This Section needs clarification:
The type of "trucks" needs identification.
The height ought to be set at a limit for today's standard vehicles, not removed altogether.
The restriction on RV's also needs specifying. How many times can they be parked at 72 hour intervals? Once per month? Once a week?
Overall, there needs to be more explanation written in the rules. Below are more pointers on why we oppose this change.
The 'unspecified' notated 'trucks' of any height or type, will be allowed to be parked on driveways at all times. This will obstruct views, create visual eyesores to the community, and cause visual interference when entering and exiting from driveways, streets and garages.
This is an infringement on Del Webb's master open plan concept vision for the Community. It changes the dynamics of the neighborhood, creating ugly visual eyesores, which usually results in lower property values.
SCOV's houses are built on varying grade levels, slopes and hills. This creates driving visibility problems, especially on streets with upward hills.
This unlimited vehicle height increase is in conflict with the Development Standards Sect. 2.18 / 6 rule for hedges blocking driveways and street corners. 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, within the same proximity of the hedges will cause an identical visual interference as hedges with no height limit. Why allow it?
This height change is also in conflict with Master Declaration 4.19, 4.23 a & Development Standards 2.3, restricting front yard walls 20 ft. from 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 with NO height limit 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 such as passenger trucks or camper trucks which 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 at all times? This initiative is written sloppy, esp. in regard to the specification of vehicle types and their heights.
The Board is playing favorites to accommodate perhaps themselves or their friends with larger vehicles. They are not thinking of the aesthetic 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
Please oppose allowing these vehicles to be permanently parked in driveways.
Comments