David's Anthem Journal

Senator Reid Calls On BLM To End Sloan Hills Gravel Pit Project

Readers: In advance of this week’s potentially momentous BLM hearings on the proposed Sloan Hills mining project, Senator Harry Reid has written a strongly worded letter to the BLM, urging that the project be aborted.

Thanks to Rich Miller, one of the SCA residents actively engaged in the opposition effort, for providing me with Senator Reid’s news release and letter, both of which follow.

---------------

Reid Submits Letter To BLM in Advance of Public Meetings

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid today submitted a letter to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prior to three public meetings on the Sloan Hills Draft Environmental Impact Statement. In March 2011, Reid reintroduced the Sloan Hills Withdrawal Act to permanently stop consideration of any gravel pit at the Sloan Hills site near Henderson.

In the letter, Reid calls on the BLM to put an end to the proposed Sloan Hills gravel pit, saying the project would have an “unacceptable impact on the quality of life and general health of the 13,000 residents in the nearby Henderson community.”

Below is the text of the letter:

November 1, 2011

Robert B. Ross, Jr.

Field Manager

BLM Las Vegas Field Office

4701 Torrey Pines Drive

Las Vegas, NV 89130-2301

Dear Mr. Ross:

I write today to encourage you to choose the no action alternative in the Sloan Hills Draft Environmental Impact Statement and deny the permit for the proposed Sloan Hills gravel pit. As you know, the settlement agreement that prompted this EIS requires the BLM to consider the proposed sale; however, nothing in that agreement restricts the BLM’s discretion to deny the permit for the proposed gravel pit and protect the health and safety of local residents.

For nearly a decade, the controversial Sloan Hills project has generated overwhelming opposition – I have heard from thousands of Nevadans up in arms over the proposed gravel mine. In response to the public outcry and my commitment to protecting public health and safety, I have introduced the Sloan Hills Withdrawal Act in the 111th Congress and the 112th Congress to permanently prevent development of the proposed gravel pit. I continue to work with the Nevada congressional delegation and my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to find a path toward passing the bill.

The BLM should heed the unified public opposition and administratively put an end to this risky project. The proposed mine operations outlined in the Draft EIS would have a significant and unacceptable impact on the quality of life and general health of the 13,000 residents in the nearby Henderson community. If the permit is approved, the mining operations would blast rock, crush gravel, kick up dust, and consume precious water resources up to twenty-four hours a day, every day, for thirty years. Mined aggregate materials will also have to be hauled off-site. The BLM estimates that, at full production, the Sloan Hills gravel pit may require up to 312,500 truck trips per year – that is the equivalent of more than 35 trucks per hour leaving the site and entering Interstate 15.

Southern Nevadans are justifiably worried that this project will further reduce their home values, harm their health, and impact their overall quality of life. Most troublesome to nearby residents are large clouds of fine particulate matter that would be generated by mining and trucking activities at the gravel pit. The dust pollution, kicked up by the proposed gravel operation, could exacerbate air quality challenges in the Las Vegas Valley and is potentially harmful for the nearby, age-restricted communities – home to many seniors already suffering from respiratory problems.

Putting an end to the Sloan Hills gravel pit is important to me and to all Southern Nevadans, but it is especially important to the thousands of people living in communities near the proposed mine site. I understand that the BLM must complete its environmental analysis process and make a final decision, taking into account the environmental, health and safety impacts the project would have in nearby communities. I encourage you to take these unacceptable and easily-avoided impacts into consideration and deny the permit for the Sloan Hills gravel pit.

If you have any questions, please contact me or my staff at (202) 224-3542. I appreciate your attention to and consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

HARRY REID

United States Senator

cc: Honorably Bob Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land Management

Amy Lueders, Director, Nevada State Office, Bureau of Land Management

Legislative Update: SB 204 – Part 3

 

QUORUMS – Section 42 of this bill amends NRS 116.3109 in two important ways as it applies to quorums.

The first change relates to what constitutes a quorum at meetings of the units’ owners. The most important of these meetings, of course, is the annual Members Meeting each November at which the SCA budget for the coming year is ratified …by default, as not enough members show up to reject the budget.

The new law says that a quorum of unit owners is present, unless the governing documents state otherwise, if persons entitled to cast 20 percent of the votes in the association are (a) present in person, (b) present by proxy, (c) have cast absentee ballots in the prescribed manner, or any combination of these three methods.

Our governing documents DO set a lower percentage for a quorum: 10 percent. This 10 percent figure would amount to representation by at least 715 units out of our 7,144.

In addition, Section 8.1 of the SCA CC&Rs requires that 90 percent of units must reject a budget to prevent it from being ratified, which amounts to 6,430 votes, not a mathematical impossibility but certainly a practical one.

The more significant change in quorum requirements relates to what constitutes a quorum of directors at board meetings.

Under current law and our governing documents, if a quorum of directors – at least 4 out of 7- is present at the beginning of a board meeting, the quorum is considered to be still in effect for voting purposes if the number of directors present drops below 4 at any point during the meeting. For example, a board meeting could begin with 4 directors present but the number drops to 3 during the meeting when one of the directors leaves for a medical appointment. Under current law, the board can still vote on agenda items, because a quorum was present when the meeting started.

When the law changes next January, however, a quorum must be present at the time each vote on an agenda item is taken:

Unless the governing documents specify a larger number, a quorum of the executive board is deemed present for purposes of determining the validity of any action taken at a meeting of the executive board only if individuals entitled to cast a majority of votes on that board are present at the time a vote regarding that action is taken. If a quorum is present when a vote is taken, the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present is the act of the executive board unless a greater vote is required by the declaration or bylaws.

The speakers at the Legislative Update did not deem this change regarding board-meeting quorums to be beneficial to HOAs. The way the new law is written, they said, one or more directors could simply step out of the meeting room to deny the board a quorum for voting on a particular issue, and could then return to the room for the rest of the agenda.

---------------

Robert’s Rules of Order – SB 204 mandates that members meetings and board meetings “must be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, unless the bylaws or a resolution of the executive board adopted before the meeting provide otherwise.”

The current SCA governing documents do specify that meetings will be conducted in accordance with Robert’s Rules. Our Board meetings, in particular, do follow Robert’s Rules closely, though not religiously. It may be that our Board may need to adopt a resolution specifying how Robert’s Rules will be followed or not followed.

(to be continued)

 

Legislative Update: SB 204 – Part 2

 

EXECUTIVE BOARD ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY -- A very significant provision of SB 204, signed into law by Governor Sandoval, concerns the authority of an executive board to take enforcement actions for various violations.

This is new language in the law, and bears stating in its entirety:

The executive board may determine whether to take enforcement action by exercising the association’s power to impose sanctions or commence an action for a violation of the declaration, bylaws or rules, including whether to compromise any claim for unpaid assessments or other claim made by or against it. The executive board does not have a duty to take enforcement action if it determines that, under the facts and circumstances presented:

(a) The association’s legal position does not justify taking any or further enforcement action;

(b) The covenant, restriction or rule being enforced is, or is likely to be construed as, inconsistent with current law;

(c) Although a violation may exist or may have occurred, it is not so material as to be objectionable to a reasonable person or to justify expending the association’s resources; or

(d) It is not in the association’s best interests to pursue an enforcement action.

The executive board’s decision …not to pursue enforcement action under one set of circumstances does not prevent the executive board from taking enforcement action under another set of circumstances, but the executive board may not be arbitrary or capricious in taking enforcement action.

I take a couple of things away from my study of this new statutory language. One is that the board cannot be compelled, after consideration of circumstances, to take, or not take, actions to issue sanctions for various violations. Also, just because the board does or does not undertake sanctions to address various violations, homeowners who claim inconsistencies in how the board addresses similar fact patterns may find the board able to justify different outcomes if it can show that it did not act arbitrarily or capriciously.

---------------

FILLING BOARD VACANCIES -- SB 204 makes another significant change in how board vacancies can be filled when an opening occurs between regularly scheduled elections.

…the executive board may fill vacancies in its membership for the unexpired portion of any term or until the next regularly scheduled election of executive board members, whichever is earlier. Any executive board member elected to a previously vacant position which was temporarily filled by board appointment may only be elected to fulfill the remainder of the unexpired portion of the term.

By example, let me explain what this means.

In the 2011 Board election, we elected four new directors for two-year terms. Let’s say that one of these directors resigns from the Board next week. The Board can appoint someone to fill the vacancy, but the person so appointed cannot serve for the remainder of the two-year term of the director who resigned. Rather, the appointee can serve only until the next regularly scheduled election, in 2012. Then that seat must be filled for only one additional year (the remainder of the two-year term of the resigned director) in the 2012 election while three people are elected for the normal two-year term.

This preserves the staggered election system –3,4,3,4, etc.- currently in place.

---------------

REMOVAL ELECTIONS –- Section 37 of the bill reverts back to the law as it was in 2009, and says that any member of the board can be removed, with or without cause, if at a removal election, the number of votes cast in favor of removal constitutes at least 35 percent of the total number of voting members of the association and is a majority of all votes cast in the election.

What this means for SCA: In a removal election, at least 2,501 units (35% of 7,144 units) must vote in favor of removal AND those voting for removal must be a majority of all the votes. This means, in a removal election that meets the 35-percent total voting for removal, that number must still be a majority of all votes cast in the removal election.

The practical effect of this language is that it will be next to impossible to remove a director in a removal election, certainly much more difficult than simply defeating that director in a subsequent election where the top vote-getters are elected.

Under the new language, it is easier to call for a removal election than to actually succeed in one:

A removal election may be called by units’ owners constituting at least 10 percent, or any lower percentage specified in the bylaws, of the total number of voting members of the association. For SCA, this is 715 units. Readers may recall that an effort was made to call for a removal election of the previous Board, but the proponents could not even obtain the necessary 715 petition signatures to trigger such an election.

(to be continued)