If there is any doubt about the meaning of "Uniform" in these documents, it is explained here - Page 33 - Paragraph 6.3

http://www.laspalmashoa.com/f/CCR_Las_Palmas.pdf

"...shall be the amount obtained by dividing the total budget of the Association...by the number of units....".

 GHR

Gary, please see the CC&R's on the official HOA Website -

http://www.laspalmashoa.com/f/CCR_Las_Palmas.pdf

Page 33 - Paragraph 6.3 -

Determination of Annual Assessment 

 "The amount of the annual Assessment for each lot/unit …..shall be the amount obtained by dividing the total budget of the Association of the Assessment Period for which the Annual Assessment is being levied by the total number of Units….” 

Total Budget of the Association - $661,152.00 divided by the number of units – 172 = $3,843.91 divided by 12 = $320.33 per Month per unit.  

To change the method of determining the assessment requires an amendment to the CC&R’s and any such amendment would have been filed in the State of Sonora.There was no ballot to change the CC&R’s, we did not vote to change the CC&R’s, and there is no record of an amendment to the CC&R’s on file in the State of Sonora. 

To vote “In Favor of accepting the Results of proposed HOA fee structure by average square footage approved during the January 31, 2009 Las Palmas General assembly meeting”  would be voting in favor of supporting the board acting contrary to the CC&R’s. I do not see how any knowledgeable owner could, in good conscience, do that. 

Thank you

More to consider:

 Las Palmas HOA Fees
 
Las Palmas Leadership Group
 
The State of Sonora Condominium Law is not when translated into English a deep dark document to be feared by all North of the border.  Quite the contrary the law clearly in good order states the various requirements, authorities and methods by which condominiums are established and owner governed.  The law applies not only to one or some but to all condominium developments within Sonora and the resulting HOA's.
 
There are several reasons why neither the board nor owners have acted including the following:
 
1.  The board has become recalcitrant .
2.  The owners are uniformed or misinformed.
3.  Some owners fear an unfavorable distribution of HOA fees resulting from compliance with the law.  This applies to tower and villa owners.
4.  Reducing value of tower vote.
 
Under Sonora law HOA's have no board instead the owners appoint - vote - a surveillance committee designates one as chairman.  The law requires a minimum of three and a max of five.  Although the authority of the "board" is minimal having five members at Las Palmas may well have assured a path to resolution of non-compliance with Sonora State law.
 
Since few owners and perhaps no "board" member has read the law dis or miss information abounds.  The English translated law is only twenty - one single side pages long.
 
The real concern or fear of unfavorable distribution of fees is addresses by chapter IV, article 28, section II and chapter IV, article 30, section VII, paragraph 2 which provide, in part, votes equal to percentage of value of unit in relation to total condominium value and funds (fee) formed proportionally to the value of each unit.  This being law a variable rate fee scheme is the only method available and will provide the least fee for small one bedroom up proportionally through villas with an emphasis on the four bedroom or beach front villas.  Although unknown now, it is possible fees may be in the range currently proposed.
 
Miss handling of a dispute, by the board, over one unaccounted for vote has now spread from Sandy Beach to the Mayan Beach area.
 
This does not bode well for Las Palmas owners without agreement to State of Sonora law.  One or more of several events will occur.  They are:
 
1.  Resolution.
2.  No resolution.
3.  Additional fee withholding or non payment.
4.  State of Sonora intercedes.
 
Number two and three only continue the disruption, anger and financial impact which will negatively affect all owners.  Number four solves the problem however heavy handed or costly the ordered compliance order may be.   Any owner who would challenge number one as the only rational option is in serious need of a reality check up.
 
While other changes to the HOA regulations are required the immediate problem is to effect a compromise which returns financial stability to the HOA and at the same time appoints a committee or hires an attorney with the explicit order to achieve compliance with State of Sonora Condominium Law.
 
Without a compromise ASAP I would push in fact enable State of Sonora intervention.  No owner can be for resolution against a compromise as outlined above and remain creditable.  such rationale does not exist.
 
If you accept my reasoning and suggestion for resolution please as leaders explain the situation to the owners with any other ideas or comments.  Only with your good effort can resolution happen.
 
Jack Wiley
Grande 102 & 205

I expressed concern 2 years ago about the declining appearance of the resort.  Now what I'm hearing is that there is no money and so the resort is really sliding in terms of appearance and rental clientele.  Is this speculation or reality?  Can anyone confirm this? And, are there MANY homeowners who have not paid their HOA fees?  How bad is the financial situation?  I would be interested in knowing.

 Thanks.