January 2023:

• • The board opened three sealed bids for a turf conversion project in part of the common area (exact scope not specified).
• • Two of the sealed bids were from licensed contractors (bidding $840k and $447k, respectively).
• • The third bid was “direct from manufacturer” (i.e., materials only) from “Purchase Green” for $331k. A&R Landscaping is referenced as the likely installer, but without specific details on what the labor would cost, or why A&R did not submit a bid. The Board did note a concern that A&R Landscaping did not have a high enough bid cap to work on the project. At the time, their bid cap was $45k.
• • The Board approved an amount Not To Exceed $331k.

• • Nevada State Contractors Board licensing information indicates that each of the first two contractors that submitted the $840k and $447k bids had bid cap maximums that were sufficient to bid the project.
• • Path to Prosperity LLC (d/b/a Purchase Green) later informed us that they did not provide a bid to The Fountains. They stated that it came from a “local dealer,” Compound Effect LLC, which does not appear to have a contractors license
• • It is public record, via the Nevada Secretary of State and the Nevada Contractors Board, that A&R Maintenance and Landscaping LLC and Compound Effect LLC share ownership, as well as an office suite.
• • The January meeting minutes did not specifically state which contractor was awarded the work; however, A&R Landscaping has installed promotional signs along Watermark Parkway, and their insignia has been visibly present on the work trucks and employee worker clothing throughout the months of August and September.

February 2023:

• • The board moved to postpone discussion and/or action on common area projects to a later meeting. This decision was influenced by the feedback and concerns voiced by homeowners at the “Homeowner Forum” held the night before.

• • A&R Landscaping, the same company that currently appears to be doing turf conversion along Watermark Parkway, installed hundreds of solar lights in the common areas in early February.
• • Following homeowner outcry, the solar lights were removed. Homeowners were advised that the installation of the lights had just been a test pilot.
• • In response to concerns raised by homeowners, a “Homeowner Forum" was held the night before the official Board meeting. This Homeowner Forum was not officially on the record, and no notes or meeting minutes were published.
• • No further special meetings, homeowner forums, or surveys have been held for community feedback.
• • The May 2023 meeting minutes reference A&R providing a $28k credit to the Fountains after the removal of the solar lights. Published meeting minutes do not contain information about the original cost, or subsequent net cost, of the solar light pilot; nor do they reflect a vote to approve the solar light pilot prior to installation.

June 2023:

• • The Board reviewed bids from A&R Landscaping for 10 individual projects, representing a total of over $175k in work.
• • A&R submitted 3 individual proposals for Tree Replacement & Removal along Robindale, for an aggregate total of $79,950: center of Robindale ($28,290.00); east of Robindale ($25,830.00); and west of Robindale ($25,830.00). It is noted that one other company had previously submitted a single proposal for $52,750.
• • A&R submitted 3 individual proposals for Exterior Security Lighting Along Exterior Perimeter, for an aggregate total of $49,100: east of Robindale ($15,300.00); west of Robindale ($15,300.00); and along Green Valley Parkway ($18,500.00). There is no reference to any other company having submitted proposals for this work
• • The Board noted that A&R’s max bid cap was still $45k at the time of the meeting.
• • The Board voted to approve $28,290 for A&R to remove and replace trees along the center of Robindale, and agreed to table the majority of A&R’s other proposals until a later date.

• • Based on the Fountains’ 2023 Operating Budget, any project in our community that costs ~$30,500 or more requires 3 sealed bids per NRS 116.31086.

July 2023:

• • The Board approved A&R’s remaining 2 bids for tree replacement (each for $25,830.00), which had been tabled from the June meeting.
• • It was noted that the Board had received a proposal from one company (not A&R) to install artificial turf in the center island between the guard shack and the main fountain. The amount of the proposal was not specified, and no other contractors or proposals were referenced.
• • The Board approved a Not To Exceed amount of $65k to install artificial turf in the center island between the guard shack and the main fountain.

• • The July meeting minutes did not specifically state which contractor was awarded the work to install artificial turf in the center island between the guard shack and the main fountain; however, A&R Landscaping later installed promotional signs in this island, and their insignia was visibly present on the work trucks and employee worker clothing while work was being done in this area.
• • Based on the Fountains’ 2023 Operating Budget, any project in our community that costs ~$30,500 or more requires 3 sealed bids per NRS 116.31086.

There have been a large number of common area projects undertaken this year.

• • What is the total cost of these projects?
• • Does the total cost of these projects exceed expected grass removal rebates? If so, by how much?
• • How much money is being drawn out of reserves in order to fund these projects?
• • Will the expense of this work trigger a homeowner assessment to replenish the HOA reserve funds? If so, what is the expected amount of that special assessment?

Regarding the turf conversion bid process outlined in the January 2023 board meeting minutes:

• • Were there a total of 3 equivalent bids from 3 duly licensed contractors, as required by NRS 116.31086?
• • If this project was broken into two parts – one for materials only, and one for installation labor only – were 3 sealed bids reviewed for each part, as required by NRS 116.31086?
• • Was the Board aware of A&R and Compound Effect‘s common ownership and business associations?
• • Was the Board concerned that contracting with A&R and/or Compound Effect for turf conversion could possibly violate NRS 624.220 and/or NRS 624.740?

Regarding the current project taking place along Watermark Parkway:

• • When was the final bid submitted?
• • What was the contract amount and scope of work?
• • When and by whom was it approved?
• • Who is the duly licensed contractor completing the work?
• • What was their bid cap at the time that the project was bid?
• • What was their bid cap at the time the project started?
• • What is their current bid cap?

Regarding the solar lights that were installed (and later removed) along Watermark Parkway:

• • When was the final bid submitted?
• • What was the contract amount and scope of work?
• • When and by whom was it approved?
• • Did any other companies submit proposals for this project?

The Nevada State Contractors Board compliance division is available to clarify laws and regulations. Have they provided written answers to any of the following:

• • Is a contractor legally eligible to bid work that is above their bid cap maximum?
• • Is a contractor legally eligible to complete work that is above their bid cap maximum?
• • Is a contractor legally eligible to bid or complete multiple smaller projects for a single client that, in aggregate, rise above their bid cap maximum?
• • Is a contractor legally eligible to bid or complete multiple smaller projects for a single client that, in aggregate, rise above their bid cap maximum, provided that they only work on a single project at a time?
• • Does a contractor's bid cap maximum reset after each project? Or each calendar year? Or is it a lifetime maximum?

There appear to be multiple instances of large projects (e.g., tree removal and replacement; exterior perimeter lighting; turf conversion; etc) that are being broken into smaller sub-projects.

• • Why are these projects being broken up into smaller parts?
• • Have other contractors submitted proposals for these projects? If so, what was the amount and scope of the alternate proposals?
• • Are these projects subject to NRS 624.220, requiring 3 sealed bids? Why or why not?