This is Phil Chapman. I am currently on the Board of the Providence Master Association, but I am not running for re-election this cycle. I write only for myself here and not on behalf of the Association or the Board.

Three of the five Providence Board positions, those currently occupied by Joe VanDyke, Ed Stergar, and Tim Gregart, are up for election this November. Shauna Turner and I will remain on the Board at least until the 2026 election. There are seven candidates running to fill the three open seats: Joe VanDyke, Kristin Huth, Mikhail Honarvar, Nathan Taylor, Ed Stergar, Tim Gregart, and Michelle Tagata. 

In general, four of the five members of the current Board are in substantial agreement on issues regarding the core functions of the Association - maintenance of the areas of common responsibility and enforcement of the covenants. Tim Gregart, as discussed below, often opposes the rest of the Board for nebulous reasons. The main disagreements are about things that the Association is not required to do by either the law or our Governing Documents. The following are the candidates’ positions on the most controversial of those things as I understand them to be, based on the candidate statements and past positions. I do not know Mikhail or Nathan’s positions on these issues.

SECURITY PATROL

Increasing the level of security patrols throughout Providence would, of course, result in increased spending, which, if not offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget, would necessitate increasing homeowner assessments. The amount of any increase in spending would depend on the chosen level of additional patrols, but a roving security patrol at the level we had previously would add at least $1,000,000 to our annual expenses, and probably more. That would necessitate a substantial increase in assessments, from the current $150 per quarter to $194 - $200 per quarter or more. In addition to being enormously expensive, the roving security patrol is demonstrably ineffective. Skye Canyon, our neighboring community to the north, has roving, armed security and their crime rates, as reported by LVMPD, have been comparable to Providence’s both when we had roving patrol and since we eliminated it. 

TIM expresses support for “more security … at a reasonable cost.” He does not specify the level of security desired or what amount of increased spending he believes to be reasonable.

ED supports an increased security presence based on a survey to which 294 of 5,667 Providence homeowners responded. 171 homeowners were in favor of increased patrols; only 138 were in favor of increasing assessments to pay for increased patrols; 139 were opposed to increasing assessments to pay for increased patrols. Ed lists “street racing” among the things he believes security patrols could assist with. Providence does not own any streets (except for those in Oxford Commons, where there have been no reports of street racing). Our security has no authority to enforce anything on the city-owned streets in Providence. They can only call the police, which any other member or resident can do as well.

MICHELLE supports “more security,” but believes that “[t]here won’t be any need to raise assessments if the Board shops and stays competitive in pricing.” She does not explain how she proposes to get more services for the same amount of spending. The Board has always engaged in a competitive bidding process (as required by law) when seeking new vendors and contractors. 

JOE & KRISTIN oppose spending more money on increased security patrols.

TRANSPARENCY

In the past, all meetings of committees of the Association were open to all members. Homeowners could attend in-person or Zoom meetings to observe committee discussions. When we re-established the finance and social committees, Joe and I wanted to continue that policy. Shauna, Tim, and Ed, voted not to do so. They have not provided a reasonable explanation for their desire for secret committee meetings. 

TIM does not mention transparency in his candidate statement. He has voted to keep meetings of the Finance Committee and Social Committee secret and closed to members of the Association. On more than one occasion at Board meetings, he has questioned homeowners about how they obtained information or documents that the Association was obligated by law to disclose, acting as if the homeowners had obtained them improperly.

ED does not mention transparency in his candidate statement. He has voted to keep meetings of the Finance Committee and Social Committee secret and closed to members of the Association. As the Board’s liaison to the Finance Committee, he has attempted to limit its members to only those homeowners of whom he approves. He apparently recruited one person to be on the Finance Committee who is not a member of the Association. That person served on the committee for several months before his status was discovered and he was removed. 

MICHELLE says that transparency is “super important,” but, as chair of the Finance Committee, she has consistently fought to keep committee meetings secret and closed to members of the Association. She has even attempted to exclude some Board members from Finance Committee meetings.

JOE & KRISTIN support having committee meetings open to all members, except for meetings of the Design Review Committee, which are required by law to be closed because they invariably involve discussion of confidential homeowner information.

SOCIAL EVENTS

There is nothing in Nevada law or the Association’s Governing Documents that authorizes the Board to spend Association funds to entertain members of the Association or others. The Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation clearly set forth the purposes of the Association as a legal entity. Entertainment is not among those purposes. 

TIM is in favor of “community events at a reasonable cost.” He does not state how much of your money he wants to spend on entertainment.

ED is in favor of “hosting events … with little to no cost.” He does not specify how much “little cost” is. 

MICHELLE suggests diverting our $50,000 contingency fund to event spending. That money is set aside to respond to unforeseen emergencies. If it is not spent in a given year, it becomes surplus funds and is either allocated to our reserves or returned to homeowners. Spending that money on entertainment would be fiscally irresponsible.

JOE & KRISTIN are opposed to spending Association funds on entertainment events. They support individual homeowners or groups of homeowners who privately organize events for the community. They approve of the Association advertising such private events in Association publications, which does not result in any additional expense. Kristin has personally organized many successful social events for the community.

MY THOUGHTS ON THE CANDIDATES

Tim Gregart: Tim is a detriment to the Board and the Association. As you can see from his candidate statement, he is unnecessarily antagonistic to all four of his fellow Board members and, especially, to members of our excellent management team. Tim’s behavior on the Board has frequently been erratic, unpredictable, and irrational. Some examples: At the January 2025 meeting in which the Board elected its officers for that year, he voted “no” for every member nominated to be Board Treasurer, including a member he had nominated himself. At a recent Board meeting, Tim voted against approving the minutes from the prior meeting. When asked if he had any proposed changes to the minutes, he offered none, but refused to change his vote. Tim’s communications with management are often demeaning and hostile, containing accusations that border on paranoia. Tim previously served on the board for the Somerset sub-association. His similar behavior on that board caused such turmoil that their management company felt compelled to terminate its contract with them. I think it’s fair to say that none of the other four members of the Providence Board would recommend that anyone vote to re-elect Tim.

Ed Stergar:  Ed has done a good job as President of the Board. He runs meetings fairly and efficiently. I disagree with his positions on security patrols, social events, and transparency, but I can work with him.

Michelle Tagata: My interactions with Michelle have been limited, but I have perceived her to be inexplicably hostile to me. For example, her candidate statement refers to “a certain Board member” at Finance Committee meetings, who she says “continued to advocate against and stonewall any sort of oversight on vendor expenses.” I have attended almost all of the Finance Committee meetings and have no idea what she’s talking about. I suspect that she’s referring to me, but her statement is completely inaccurate with regard to any Board member. Michelle also implies that the current Board does not focus on “keeping our costs competitive.” That is also completely inaccurate. Fiscal responsibility is one point that at least four of the five current members largely agree on. I believe that Michelle’s election to the Board would only exacerbate the current conflicts among the Board members. To my knowledge, Michelle has never attended a Providence Board meeting. 

Joe VanDyke:  Joe is a huge asset to the Board and the Association. He has been on the Board for four years and attended Board meetings regularly for a couple of years before his election. He is very knowledgeable about the Association and its history and about Nevada law concerning Homeowners Associations. His focus has always been on doing what is best for the Association as a whole, guided by the requirements and restrictions of the law and our Governing Documents. I have not always agreed with him, but have found him to be scrupulously conscientious and ethical. I highly recommend that everyone vote for him.

Kristin Huth: Kristin has been heavily involved with the Association for several years. In addition to organizing many social events for the community, she has been regularly attending Board meetings and voicing her opinion to the Board for several years. She has run for election to the Board multiple times. She volunteered to be on the Finance Committee last March, but due to stonewalling by Shauna, Tim, and Ed, has yet to receive an up or down vote on her appointment. Kristin is strongly motivated and very capable. I highly recommend that everyone vote for her.

Mikhail Honarvar:  I don’t know much about Mikhail beyond his candidate statement, but he is the Corporate Vice President for Financial Planning and Analysis for Station Casinos, which, to me, makes him eminently qualified to be on the Board.

Nathan Taylor: Nathan has been a bit vague on the major issues. He seems to support an increased security presence, but doesn’t want to raise assessments to pay for it. I’m still not sure where he stands on using Association funds to pay for social events. He has also, inexplicably, blocked me (and several other people) on Facebook recently, so I question his commitment to transparency and open discussion. 

Please read each Board candidate’s information statement carefully to ensure that you vote to elect candidates whose views represent your own. You should receive your ballots and candidate information statements by mail or email on October 15th or shortly after. Each household can vote for up to three of the seven candidates. The annual meeting of members at which the votes will be counted, is scheduled for Wednesday, November 19 at 5:00 p.m. at Findlay Honda. 

If you have questions or would like to discuss anything with me, please feel free to call or text me at 757.291.2005 or email me at elmonobobo@gmail.com.