Category Archives: HOAMCO

HOAMCO Tells Los Lunas Family to Tear Down Cabana

All HOAs have a committee that reviews home improvement projects to make sure they are within the guidelines of the community.  The Stubbs family apparently went through the approval process in Huning Ranch, but 6 years later, they’ve been fined by HOAMCO and are being told to tear down their cabana.

Click on Cabana to see KOB News article

 

Advertisements

“F” Rating: Food For Thought on Management Services

HOAMCO has an “F” rating. Thought every homeowner should be aware of this…..

http://www.bbb.org/phoenix/business-reviews/association-management/homeowners-association-management-co-in-prescott-az-7000734

Why Doesn’t the RVS Board Want Residents to be Informed?

Residents of Rancho Viejo South received an e-mail blast from Vince Montoya on August 17 stating that the Board of Directors has not “sanctioned” the August 19 meeting about changes in the provision of recycled water for irrigation. Last time I checked, Rancho Viejo was in the United States, a country founded on the principle of freedom of speech. Nobody who lives here needs permission from the Board to hold a meeting, share information, or express an opinion.

The Boards of Rancho Viejo North and La Entrada have both sent out notices about this meeting to all residents via e-mail. Although requested to do the same, the South Board refused.

I invited the RVS Board member who attended all the meetings with Ranchland Utility regarding the sale of the irrigation system to speak at the August 19 meeting twice and never received the courtesy of a response. Our Board seems to be committed to doing everything in private and providing as little information as possible to homeowners.

Why is our Board so hostile to the exchange of information?

Although a few Board members have given lip service to an atmosphere of greater transparency, their actions show they have no real interest in dialog. Rather their attitude is one of, “We’ll tell you what you need to know, if we think you need to know, and if you don’t like it, move.” Yes, Board members have told residents to move if they object to Board views. If these individuals have such scorn for residents why are they on the Board? They are supposed to represent our interests, not scold us for exercising our rights.

The reason we are holding this meeting is that the Board has consistently failed to share information that affects the interests of RVS homeowners. They have created an environment of distrust.

In this instance, homeowners could be paying a substantial amount of money for taking over the ownership of the irrigation infrastructure. Doesn’t that deserve a discussion?

Yes a homework group is planned. I have participated in such a group. They usually involve a major time commitment over several days or weeks, precluding working people from attending. It is also possible that only certain alternatives will be presented, while the August 19 meeting will cover a wider range of options.

I encourage all RVS residents to attend this meeting. Dialog and dissemination of information is never detrimental.

Another HOA Mismanaged by HOAMCO

Residents at Ventana Ranch in Albuquerque fight back against abuse.

http://krqe.com/2014/12/10/homeowners-association-boots-residents-on-city-streets/

Was the 2014 Election Fraudulent?

This is Vince Montoya, Campaign/Community Manager, next to election “officials”, voting and signing ballots during the election on Nov. 18:

During counting, Vince handled proxies multiple times, and then began voting and writing on them.  Eventually all proxies were counted toward candidates – the “quorum only” stack disappeared.  Election procedures were very different and confusing this year ….

Click on ELECTION FRAUD for more details

 

 

Take a CLOSER LOOK at the Audit

Residents received another message from the Campaign/Community Manager that everything about the 2013 financial audit is “very good news”.  Too bad it’s not true.  Let’s take a closer look.  An “unqualified” audit means that no problems were found in terms of financial practices following GAAP.  That’s good.

The auditor also stated on page 1 that: “An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgement, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error.  In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the Association’s preparation and fair presentation of  the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Association’s internal controlAccordingly, we express no such opinion . . . . We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information [in the reserve study] because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.”    That’s NOT good.

So what does all this accounting legalese mean?  It means the Auditor couldn’t publish an opinion about whether the Association is being effectively managed by the Board of Directors or not – or whether or not the reserves are properly funded Look at the date on the reserve study: June 2010!  And guess what else?  It was never approved by the previous board, because they had questions about the accuracy of infrastructure estimates and thought they were too low.  We don’t have a current reserve study and the engineering study by Ranchland Utilities won’t be finished until December.  If we have to complete major road repairs in 2015 all at once, it could wipe out our $1M+ reserve in one fell swoop.  (Even if the study were accurate, how can the campaign/community manager say reserves are adequately funded when the numbers add up to $8M plus?)

The audit also lumps a lot of categories together, so even though total expenses might look OK, you can’t see individual line item overruns, and there are several, especially in legal expenditures (over $30,000 in less than 3 years).  Previously, the Auditor presented their report to the whole board so they could review it, ask questions, and take corrective action – that didn’t happen this year and a flawed audit was sent to residents.

The HOAMCO CEO made a fine speech about how dissension in our neighborhood will reduce property values.  News flash, Justin – not taking care of roads, trails, and irrigation systems is what actually reduces property values!  Maybe the new directors will succeed where the previous “malcontents” did not, and convince the ostriches and president to pull their heads out of the … sand.  We need the new reserve study completed, so we know how to properly fund future infrastructure and irrigation maintenance.  We need the board to focus on community solutions instead of spending money on legal opinions and trying to force directors to resign when they ask inconvenient questions!  GO TO BOARD MEETINGS AND ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT SPENDING!  IT’S YOUR MONEY!

Unethical Behavior by our HOA Manager

Our HOA community manager Vince Montoya continually acts in an unprofessional manner by interjecting himself into Board elections and misusing the HOA e-mail list.

On October 30, the four Board candidates who attended the Candidate Forum received the following e-mail from him.

October 30, 2014

Vince Montoya <VMontoya@hoamco.com>

To: Vince Montoya <VMontoya@hoamco.com>

Cc: Marcia Kaplan <marcia.kaplan@q.com>, David Pfeifer <djpfeiferrvsca@gmail.com>, Madelene deRollo <mderollo@yahoo.com>, Teri Buhl <scoobagal@gmail.com>

Board Candidate Question

Dear Board Candidates,

The Communications Committee on behalf of concerned residents have requested the candidates to responded to questions they felt relevant to the upcoming election. The questions are listed below and the candidates responses will be distributed to the community.  Responses are requested back by 2 PM, Tuesday, November 4th.

Thank you for your interest in the community.

  1. Homeowners are often unclear on the governance and policy making roles and responsibilities of the HOA Board vs. those of the property management company. Share your perception of the roles of a volunteer HOA Board as part of governance vs. the management responsibilities of a professional community manager provided by the property management company.
  1. The maintenance and upkeep of our community common areas and infrastructure such as parks, walking trails and roads are paid for by homeowner assessments.  Under the guidance of current HOA Board President Carol Thompson increases to these assessments are no longer automatic. What is your philosophy regarding homeowner assessment: do you favor regular annual increases; need based increases or cutting services to maintain current assessments. Please explain your philosophy.  What is your philosophy regarding homeowner assessment: do you favor regular annual increases; need based increases or cutting services to maintain current assessments. Please explain your philosophy.
  1. RVS offers its residents common area maintenance and a variety of related amenities such as free doggie bags and a shade structure near the our icon windmill, and a newsletter, which advertising covers part of the costs of publishing.   Amenities are paid for by the homeowner assessments the same as care for the commons. Do you feel that amenities add value to the community and if so why.

It appeared that the other four candidates were not sent these questions. When I questioned Mr. Montoya about this, he said those four were sent blind carbon copies. When I objected he said he would send the message out to all candidates with a CC. I also asked why the Communications Committee did not send out this message itself.

His response was, ” All correspondence from the Committees should go through the manager.” Unlike me, Mr. Montoya sees no irony in the fact that the Communications Committee is not allowed to communicate directly with residents. According to our HOA charter, committee members are allowed to communicate independently of the management company.

Question 2 is hardly objective. In nice bold letters, it says Carol Thompson has prevented dues increases. I have lived here for five years and I do not believe increases were ever automatic. Some of us have asked previous Board members about this claim and automatic increases have never been the case.

Ms. Thompson is running on this one trick pony platform – no dues increase. That is not always a good thing, and in this case, can be misleading.

How do we know the HOA does not need a dues increase?

A few facts:

  • Despite promising to do so at the September Board meeting, Carol Thompson did not include the 2014 year-to-date expenditures in the annual meeting packet. There are several categories that are very much over budget. She does not want residents to know that.
  • With persuasion from some residents, the Board commissioned its first audit in three years. It was supposed to be ready at the beginning of October. It is still not done. When Madelene DeRollo, a candidate for the Board, called the firm doing the audit, she was told it was delayed because the firm was waiting for information from Vince Montoya. It appears to me that the audit results are being held up so results are not available until after the voting and the annual meeting. The same is true for the reserve study that was also commissioned – delayed beyond the original delivery date. If that study shows that our reserves are underfunded, the assertion that our dues not being increased is a wonderful thing suddenly does not look so great. We have aging infrastructure here in RVS, combined with shoddy work by the developer’s chosen contractors. We need adequate reserves.
  • Thompson’s claim that assessments have not increased during her tenure is incorrect. Town home assessments have increased substantially to cover roof repairs. This is normally an expenditure that is covered by reserves, but the reserves were not adequate.

When Univest took over Rancho Viejo from bankrupt Suncor, the original developer, there were outstanding issues over shoddy work by the developer’s chosen contractors. To settle these claims Univest and RVS arrived at a settlement, with Univest giving RVS $150,000. All of this money should have gone into the reserve account. Instead, $50,000 was allocated to operating expenses.

And that is how the Board can overspend the budget and not have to raise assessments. They are using that cushion. It has nothing to do with prudent financial management. That was a one-time payment. We can’t go on forever overspending budgets and pretending the HOA is being run in a fiscally sound manner.

And by the way, once those questions were sent to the entire list of candidates, Mr. Montoya came back and said.

” Dear Board Candidates,

I have attempted to reach all candidates with this request from the Communications Committee but due to varying reasons I was unable to do so in a timely fashion. Therefore, in order to remain fair to all candidates this request has be withdrawn.”

I don’t buy that. I think the questions were only for the four candidates who attended the Candidate Forum.

Mr. Montoya acts in an entirely unprofessional manner by endorsing candidates. The HOA manager should be neutral. Previous complaints to Justin Scott, HOAMCO president, have gone unanswered. Instead he says he does what the majority of the Board tells him to do. This occurs even when those Board members who are running for office tell the manager to send out e-mail blasts that support their own candidacies. That is totally unethical.

If you find this disturbing, contact Justin Scott at justin@hoamco.com and voice your displeasure.