Water Management Advisory Committee

At the June 26th open SOA Board of Directors (Board) Meeting, the Board announced the formation of an “SGCC and SOA Water Management Advisory Committee”.

Having been appointed by the Board as an “Advisory” committee, its structure, methods and procedures will most likely differ from that of the SOA’s current Standing committees (e.g., Communications, Budget & Finance, Strategic Planning & Facilities). In this context, Advisory Committees are defined under Article III, Section 3.18 of the SOA ByLaws as follows:

“ADVISORY COMMITTEES: The Chairman of the Board, the Board, the executive committee or the President may from time to time appoint such advisory committees as it deems appropriate, consisting of directors or persons who are not directors, but such advisory committees shall not be deemed committees having the authority of the Board and shall not exercise any powers of the Board. Notices of, and procedures for, meetings of advisory committees shall be as prescribed by the chairman of each such advisory committee, and meetings of the advisory committees may be called by the Chairman of the Board, the Board, the executive committee, the President or the chairman of the advisory committee”.

The Board also approved a “Mission and Goals” document related to the Committee, the contents of which are admirable (if not overly general), and address needed activities. However, most represent common sense for each organization to individually accomplish and therefore, why the need for addressing by a “joint” Advisory Committee.

The Mission and Goals statements contained within the document are repeated below (in italics and unedited) along with SU comments. For those ‘fact checkers”, an exact reading of the entire document is available via the following link:    SGCC and SOA Water Management Advisory Committee

Mission

Rather than quote the entire mission statement from the document, it basically states that creation of the Advisory Committee is the best way “to assure both the short and long term ability to provide water to the Canyon9 and Championship course is managed in the best interest of both parties”

SU Comment;  What is in the best interest of one is not necessarily in the best interest of the other.  Hopefully this will not result in the Committee reaching funding concessions on the part of the SOA, as is feared by many due to the SOA’s deeper pockets, and past history.

Membership:

“Appoint a joint Advisory Committee consisting of at least two members from both the SGCC and the SOA. These members could but are not limited to Board members, staff and or outside experts”.

SU Comment: At the June 26th Board meeting in addressing formation of the Committee, it was not announced who its members were or who was the designated chairman. However, from Board comments, it was clear that SOA Directors Fitzgerald and Leto serve on the Committee. This leaves the question as to who the chairman is, who the SGCC members are, and whether or not it also consists of staff or outside experts. Since meetings have already occurred, it is fair to assume that they are known

Advisory Committee Meetings

“This Advisory Committee shall meet at least Quarterly to discuss and plan for the operational and governance of the water as outlined in the Water Rights Purchase document”.

SU Comment: It is assumed that reference should have been to the “Water Facilities Agreement” and not a “Water Rights Purchase” document, as this does not exist as a stand-alone document. Rather, it is the Water Facilities Agreement that outlines the operation, maintenance, cost allocations, responsibilities, warranties, etc. associated with the water supply system components, which utilize some, but not all of the purchased water rights. The purchased water rights are simply listed in an Exhibit to the Water Facilities Agreement. This goal statement skirts around the real issue, which is to assure that the SGCC is living up to its responsibilities under the Water Facilities Agreement. We certainly do not need a joint committee to assure that the SOA is living up to theirs. Also, will these meetings be open to owners, as are the current SOA Standing Committees?

“This Advisory Committee will meet annually during the first quarter every year to discuss the upcoming year as each organization begins to open their respective courses for play and their upcoming operating seasons.”

SU Comment: All well and good, except do we need a joint session to discuss how the SOA and SGCC plan to manage their respective golf courses for the upcoming year? What is the expected outcome of these discussions? Certainly, each organization does not need the other to tell them how to operate their respective courses.

Board Meetings:

“In addition the Committee will meet with the Boards no later than the first September of each year outlining their upcoming budget plans and expenses to operate the Water with the community for the golf courses”, also to “Develop and prepare an annual prioritization of maintenance and repair work with timelines and projected cost estimates to be presented to each Board no later than the end of September of each year. This will be used by both parties in the preparation of their annual budgets.

SU Comment: Sounds like something the SOA’s Finance & Budget and Strategic Planning/Facilities Committees would be doing anyway. As commented on above, the real issue here is to assure that the SGCC is budgeting appropriately for the repair and maintenance of the water supply system components for which they are responsible.

“In additional to an annual operating plan the committee will prepare a minimum of 3 but preferably a 5 year operating plan again outlining in detail upcoming projects in priority order with timelines and estimated costs for the use of both parties in the development of both longer range strategic plans as well as potential use in reserve studies”.

SU Comment: Good idea.

Water Rights

Prepare and recommend a plan for the use and optimization of the Water Rights that make up the Agreement between both parties such that the Water Rights as granted never terminate or revert back to their origins and are managed within the state, federal, and local laws and requirements as outlined in any and all water rights licenses or agreements”.

SU Comment: Also sounds like something an Advisory Committee could undertake. However, believe it would be beyond the expertise of SOA and SGCC Board Members and therefore, an outside expert (e.g., water rights attorney) would most likely be required.

SU Conclusion

SU’s opinion is that the Advisory Committee’s Mission and Goals statements are essentially platitudes, which do not directly address the real issue of concern. That is, will the SGCC live up to its obligations and responsibilities as required by the Water Facilities Agreement? This whole issue was prompted by the SOA paid for “Canyon9 & SGCC Water Supply Infrastructure Review” report, which identified short and long term replacement and maintenance activities estimated as high as $700K. The majority of which fall under the responsibility of the SGCC. This raised the question by many if the SGCC had the commitment and/or financial resources to meet its obligations. Hence the primary objective of the original Ad-Hoc Water Committee. Certainly, the SOA does not need the consultation, advice, permission or whatever from the SGCC to determine and live up to its responsibilities under the Water Facilities Agreement and to budget accordingly.

Bottom line  –  Perhaps rather than appointment as an “Advisory Committee” it should be an “Oversight Committee”, whose charter is to assure that not only is the SGCC living up to its responsibilities under the Water Facilities Agreement, but all other provisions of the SGCC Purchase (and Lease) Agreement.

For background information and additional details on this subject, see the SU Post of March 11, 2019 entitled “SGCC & Canyon9 Water Supply System Report” and SU Post of March 12, 2019 entitled “SOA and SGCC Water Facilities Agreement”

Reader comments, pro or con, on the preceding are solicited and welcome1

June 26th BOD Meeting Recap

Following is a recap of issues discussed and/or approved at the June 26th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting. Related Agenda items are noted. The full meeting Agenda may be accessed via the following link:

June 26th BOD Meeting Agenda – Final

Homeowner Comments:

Homeowner comments (paraphrased) addressed the following:

    1. Sierra Canyon (SC) Common Area expense contributions to the SOA and what they are dedicated to, especially with regard to the SGCC, the trail closure in SC due to a rockery wall issue, status on the AGC and ARC talks with a suggestion that they continue, and that the SOA and SC Boards get together to discuss allowing the SOA Board Member “Terry Talk” forums to be held at the Aspen Lodge.
    2. A question on the future status of the SOA/SGCC Tolling Agreement that expires on June 30th (see Agenda Item 6.a below for Board response).
    3. A concern over the “morphing” of the original Ad-Hoc Water Committee formed back in March (i.e., to address responsibilities for golf course water supply system equipment maintenance) into the newly defined SGCC & SOA Water Management Advisory Committee. Given that there is no question as to the SGCC’s responsibilities under the existing Water Facilities Agreement, why the need for this Committee, which diverts attention away from the SGCC’s responsibilities under the Agreement. The SOA Board should simply enforce the provisions of the Water Facilities Agreement and take legal action if necessary. Also, a stated need for more Board transparency on results and that Board members who are also SGCC members (Retter and Strout) should recuse themselves from actions related to this and other SGCC issues.
    4. A comment that in approving the BrightView and EPS proposals (see Agenda Items 7.b and 7.c below) on a sole source basis (i.e., no competitive bids), the Board was violating its recently approved Expense Policy, which states “Those items over $12,000 will be generally sent out to bid and reviewed by the Board of Directors for approval”. True, the Board has some discretion here, but for these cases, the work is very common and could have been performed by a variety of vendors. If the $12K figure is deemed too low for competitive bidding, then change the policy.
    5. A concern over lawn maintenance along Somersett Parkway
    6. A suggestion that the Board consider annexing the Ventana Ridge Development into the Somersett PUD.

Committee Reports:

4.b. Facilities/Strategic Planning Committee – Recommended appointment of Jaime Villarino and Steve Cader as Committee Members, who were subsequently approved by the Board.

4.c. AD-HOC Water Committee – Renamed as the “SGCC & SOA Water Management Committee”. Committee recommended approval of a “Mission Statement & Goals” document (see Agenda Item 7.e below). SOA Board Members Leto and Fitzgerald (who are on the Committee along with unnamed SGCC members) commented on the following; 1) A water facilities tour that was very educational, 2) Met with the SGCC to discuss upcoming projects, 3) SGCC meetings have been positive and cooperative with a dedication on both sides to see to it that everything required under the Water Facilities Agreement is performed properly, 4) Some additional comments on water rights issues (SU Note: Water Rights are covered under a separate provision from the Water Facilities Agreement and represent an entirely separate subject from maintenance responsibilities of water supply system components).

Old Business:

6.a. Legal Updates

      1. In response to a homeowner question, the SOA GM stated that the SOA/SGCC Tolling Agreement, which expires June 30th, will be extended, without changes. The Tolling Agreement had put litigation between the SOA and SGCC (i.e., over SGCC’s perceived liability for Rockery Wall repairs) on hold for one year, pending outcomes of the SOA lawsuit against the Somersett Development Company et. al. (SU Note: A copy of the Tolling Agreement may be accessed via the following link:   SGCC Tolling Agreement 2018)
      2. With regard to the Rockery Wall lawsuit, the SOA GM reported that all required documents required by the Court for a ruling on the Summary Judgements requested by the defendants have been submitted. However, no date for when the ruling may come down. (SU Note: For an update on the Rockery Wall litigation status see previous SU post of June 19th entitled “Rockery Wall Litigation Update (5)“)
      3. Although not addressed at the Board Meeting, SU has learned that the SOA’S liability for payment of the James and McCullough legal fees has been satisfied with a SOA payout of approximately $120K. (Note: See SU’s previous post of March 13th entitled “The Northgate Neighbors Verdict Is In” for background on this litigation)

6.c. Rockery Wall Update – Nothing significant was discussed. The Gypsy Hill Rockery Wall repairs have been completed and monitoring in other areas continue.

6.c. Discussion on Finance & CSC Charter – The BOD voted to accept the proposed changes to the Finance & Budget Committee Charter amended to exclude the provision that Board Members on the Committee are prohibited from voting on matters that woud require subsequent approval by the full Board. However, they ignored the proposed changes to the Community Standards Committee Charter and voted instead to abolish it via a 3:2 vote. (Note: See SU comment below for additional details and comments regarding the CSC vote).

6.d. Discussion on Easement Access Offer for Ventana Ridge – At the May 24th BOD Meeting, the Board approved a counter offer to the Ventana Ridge Developer for access rights through a portion of SOA property. However, the counter offer was not acted upon citing concerns over asset evaluation and whether or not a unit owner vote would be required. A motion was subsequently passed to obtain proposals for an asset evaluation, while other issues are looked at.

New Business:

7.a. The Board approved the $8.7K proposal from CartBarn for the purchase of a new utility (golf) cart to support SOA maintenance activities.
7.b. The Board approved the $20.5K proposal from BrightView to replace 100 missing or dead trees, primarily along the Somersett Parkway.
7.c. The Board approved the $18.5K proposal from EPS for Somersett Parkway entrance shelf clean-up (i.e., accumulated rock removal).
7.d. The Board approved the $8,5K proposal from Kane GeoTech for rockery wall and slope stability monitoring equipment rental & maintenance for another year.
7.e. The Board approved the SGCC & SOA Water Management Advisory Committee “Mission Statement & Goals” document, which may be accessed via the following link: SGCC and SOA Water Management Advisory Committee

SU Comment on Dissolution of the Committee Standards Committee:

The accompanying BOD Packet for this agenda item contained a copy of the Community Standards Committee (CSC) Charter reflecting some suggested minor changes. However, instead of addressing the proposed change, Board Member Leto circumvented any Charter discussion by making a motion to dissolve the Committee its entirety, with its responsibilities to be performed directly by the Board. In response to the motion, Board member Roland made a point of order that they could not vote on a motion to dissolve the Committee as it was not on the agenda. His point of order was ignored, and the Board passed the motion on a 3:2 vote, with Board Members Leto, Fitzgerald & Strout voting YES and Board Members Roland and Retter voting NO. Board member Retter also questioned whether or not the Board could devote sufficient time to assume the CSC duties. No explanation was provided as to why the Committee should be dissolved.

This raises the question as to whether the BOD acted appropriately in voting to dissolve the CSC. Why is this an issue? Not that the Board does not have the right to create and dissolve committees, but that the method they did so with regard to the CSC was in violation of NRS statutes. To quote NRS 116.3108 Section 4:

“The agenda for a meeting of the units’ owners must consist of:

(a) A clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be completed during the meeting ……..
(b) A list describing the items on which action may be taken and clearly denoting that action may be taken on those items …”

Therefore, Board Member Roland’s point was well taken and should have been heeded (i.e., if it’s not identified clearly as an agenda item, you cannot take action on it). It is difficult to understand why the Board majority would assume that a “Discussion on the CSC Charter” agenda item could also be interpreted as an “Approval for Dissolving the CSC” agenda item. From the reading of the motion, it was apparent that it was prepared prior to the meeting. Therefore, not properly identifying their real intent to unit owners when publishing the BOD Meeting Agenda. This is somewhat disingenuous, seeing as how CSC operations are “dear to the heart” of many, who may have wanted to address the Board with regard to its dissolution. The Board provided no pertinent explanations as to the necessity for dissolving the Committee. So much for increased transparency that the Board committed to!

June 26th SOA BOD Meeting Update

The previously published Agenda for the June 26th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting has been updated to include additional items. The BOD Meeting Packet supporting the meeting is also now available on the SOA website at www.somersett.net under the SOA/Committees & Meetings tab. The revised meeting agenda may be accessed via the following link:

June 26th BOD Meeting Agenda – Final

Details associated with the meeting agenda items, as derived from the BOD Meeting Packet, follow:

SOA Committee Reports:

4.b. Strategic Planning/Facilities – Committee members met with NVEnergy to explore energy use reduction opportunities and leveraging monetary incentives. Recommended appointment of Jaime Villarino and Steve Cader as new Committee Members

4.e.  AD-HOC  Water Committee – New Committee entitled “SGCC and SOA Water Management Advisory Committee”. See Agenda item 7.e below.

4.f. General Manager Report – Of particular interest in the monthly GM Report is the following:

  1. Executive Session Summary (for those who were concerned about what this “emergency” session entailed). “During the June 14, 2019 Emergency Executive Session, the Board discussed a matter related to on-going litigation. At the June 26, 2019 Executive Session, the Board will review the AGC and CSC Committee meeting minutes, discuss legal matters, review delinquencies, collection matters, fine waiver requests, and conduct hearing appeals.”
  2. SOA Engineering Projects Update – Accessible via the following link:  June 2019 SOA Engineering Update

Old Business:

6.a.  Legal Updates – 1) See previous SU post of June 19th “Rockery Wall Litigation Update (5)” for current status of this lawsuit. 2) Now that the “Northgate Neighbors” lawsuit has been adjudicated, the only remaining open issue is the amount the SOA will be liable for reimbursement of the Plaintiffs (James and McCulloch) legal fees. Although not yet determined, SU has indications it will be in excess of $100K. 3) A homeowner complaint filed with the Court, alleging that the SOA acted improperly with regard to owner implemented architectural changes, is scheduled for trial on December 9, 2019. Case is being handled by the SOA’s Insurance carrier.

6.b.  Rockery Wall Update – See the Engineering report referenced to under Agends Item 4.f above. The SOA’s consulting engineer, Seth Padovan, will also give a verbal report.

6.c.  Finance & CSC Charters – Proposed revisions to the Finance & Budget Committee (committee membership clarifications) and the Community Standards Committee (also membership clarifications) Charters will be considered. Proposed revisions are available via the following links:

Finance & Budget Committee Charter                Community Standards Committee Charter

6.d  Easement Access Offer for Ventana Ridge – At the May 14th BOD Meeting, The Board approved (on a 4:1 vote) a counter offer to the Ventana Ridge proposal of $53,353 for some access rights through a small undeveloped portion of SOA property (see SU post of May 25th “May 22th BOD Meeting Recap”, Item 6.c for details). Apparently the BOD feels that some additional discussion on the counter offer amount is in order.

New Business:

7.a.  CartBarn Proposal to Repair or Replace Golf Cart – Two proposals under consideration: 1) A new cart at $8,740, or 2) A used cart at $5,019. Board Packet did not address intended use or condition of any existing cart(s).

7.b.  Brightview Proposal for Tree Replacement – Calls for replacement of 100 dead or “missing” trees, primarily along the Somersett Parkway, at a proposed price of $20,468.

7.c  EPS Proposal for Lower Parkway Shelf Clean Up – A $18,500 proposal for removal of accumulated and fallen rock twice per year including quarterly inspections.

Note:  With regard to Items 7.b and 7.c above, per a recently approved SOA Expense Policy: “Those items over $12,000 will generally be sent out to bid and reviewed by the Board of Directors for approval”. Will that be the case here?

7.d.  Kane Proposal for Crescent Point Rockery Wall & SBE Slope Stability Monitoring – Extends SOA rental of monitoring equipment for another year (June 2019 – June 2020) for a proposed price of $8,500. Includes system maintenance and a one time visit to insure proper equipment operation.

7.e  AD-HOC Water Committee Mission Statement and Goals – At the March 27th BOD Meeting, the Board approved the formation of an Ad-Hoc committee, consisting of Board members Tom Fitzgerald and Frank Leto, with an objective to meet with SGCC representatives and reach agreements on maintenance of the “Water Facilities” supplying water to the SGCC and Canyon9 Golf Courses. A “Mission Statement & Goals” document for this committee was prepared for discussion and approval, a copy of which is available via the following link:   SGCC and SOA Water Management Advisory Committee

Note: See SU Posts of March 12th entitled “SOA and SGCC Water Facilities Agreement” and March 11th entitled “Golf Course Water Supply System Report” for the details behind formation of this committee, which, perhaps, the SOA Board felt necessary to insure that the SGCC lives up to its responsibilities under the SOA/SGCC Water Facilities Agreement.

Rockery Wall Litigation Update (5)

Somersett United’s last update on the Rockery Wall Litigation was published on March 28th, 2019. So what has transpired since then? Basically the following: 1) A series of Summary Judgement Motions filed by the Defendants, 2) Oppositions to these Motions filed by the Somersett Owners Association (SOA), and 3) Defendant Responses to the SOA Oppositions.

What is a Summary Judgement? Per Merriam-Webster “a judgment that may be granted upon a party’s motion when the pleadings, discovery, and any affidavits show that there is no issue of material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law”.

The purpose of the summary judgment process is to cut down on unnecessary litigation by eliminating without trial one or more causes of action in a complaint. Matters of Law that have been stated by the Rockery Wall litigation defendants as providing the basis for a summary judgement in their favor include the following NRS Statutes:

  • NRS 11.202, which establishes a six year statute of limitations
  • NRS 40.668, which precludes actions against a master developer for defects in appurtenances constructed on their behalf by licensed contractors.
  • NRS 78.585, which establishes a three year limitation on actions against a dissolved corporation.

A reading of the above statutes may be accessed via the following link:   NRS Statutes 11.202, 40.668 & 78.585

With regard to the Summary Judgment Motions, on May 8th, 2019 a “Stipulation and Order to Vacate Trial Date and Case Deadlines” was filed and stipulated to by all parties, wherein it states: “THEREFORE, for purposes of efficient use of resources, the parties agree that good cause exists to vacate the trial date and all discovery deadlines until a ruling is made on the pending motions.” Also that “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties are to meet and confer within ten (10) days of the Courts ruling on the aformentioned Motions in order to reset discovery and trial deadlines, and coordinate with the Court the resetting of the trial, if necessary”. No indication to date as to when the Court will rule on the Summary Judgement Motions. Note that the original trial date was scheduled for February 3, 2020.

A full reading of the aforementioned Stipulation may be accessed via the following link:   Stipulation and Order to Vacate Trial Date

A history of past events and related documents are available via the following previous posts:

In a related issue, also to be determined are future legal actions against the Somersett Golf & Country Club (SGCC) by the SOA for recovery of SOA funds spent for Rockery Wall failure repairs adjacent to the SGCC’s Hole 5. For expeditious reasons, required repairs were initiated and paid for by the SOA. However, the SOA contends that the SGCC is liable for these repairs under the 2014 Real Property Purchase Agreement’s Warranty and Property Maintenance Provisions. Although started, legal action was placed on hold until June 30th, 2019 by a mutually agreed upon “Tolling Agreement”. Given that June 30th is just a few days away, will the Tolling Agreement be extended, or will the SOA now proceed with legal action against the SGCC?

Perhaps both these issues will be discussed (doubtfully) in conjunction with the “Legal Update” agenda item for the June 26th open BOD Meeting.

June 26th SOA Board Meeting

The Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) open meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 5:30 PM at The Club at Town Center (TCTC) Sports Court. The Meeting Agenda may be accessed by clicking on the following link:

June 26th BOD Meeting Agenda (Draft)

This is a “Draft” agenda published by the SOA. When the final agenda is published along with the corresponding Board Meeting Packet, an update with additional details will be provided on this website.

Executive Session Comments and Posts

For his comment, thanks to Mr. Retter for clearing up what the “Emergency” Executive meeting was all about. Perhaps if the BOD had addressed in general the purpose of the meeting at the time of the announcement,  some of the negative speculations could have been avoided.

As for his determination that Mr. Bower has a “paranoid” attitude toward the SGCC, he like Mr. Bower is entitled to his opinion. However, it is evident that many Association member attitudes regarding the SGCC are based on past history, true that is now water under the bridge, but memories linger on.  Hence some concern over the ongoing issues with the SGCC related to Rockery Wall Failure and Water Supply System liabilities.

In response to Mr. Retter’s closing comment: “And the fact that Somersett United propagates these statements of misinformation makes me wonder about their objectives as well”, SU would like to remind Mr. Retter that this is a “Blog” site wherein Association members posts and comments are welcome and unedited regardless if SU agrees with them or not. As stated on the SU website “About” page:

Somersett Association Members who wish to submit an article for Posting may do so by emailing it to somersettunited@gmail.com. Submitted Posts should not be longer than 400 words (flexible), in good taste and without engaging in personal attacks or use of profane language. Articles submitted for Posting must contain a Title and the name of the Author. Article content should be limited to issues pertaining to Somersett Community affairs.

Reader comments on Blog Posts are also solicited. To leave a comment, simply click on the “leave a comment” or “comment” link at the end of each Post, fill out the “leave a reply” box and submit. All comments are subject to moderation before posting. That is, only to insure no libelous or profane content, if so, the commenter will be notified and asked to reword and resubmit. Commenters names are preferred. However, if confidentiality is desired for any reason, anonymous or pseudonyms may be used.

As also stated on the About page, SU’s objective is to:

    • Be proactive in supporting initiatives that we believe to be in the best interest of Somersett owners and residents.
    • Provide a place where important issues are posted and open for comment.
    • Establish an open forum for all Somersett owners to voice their opinions and become involved in community affairs.

EMERGENCY EXECUTIVE SESSION

The following article posted by Joe Bower, SC Owner & SOA Member:

What’s up Doc? Who knows? Something going on related to the private Somersett Golf and Country Club?

Homeowner associations are corporations. The homeowners/unit owners are the members of the corporation. The thrust of Chapter 116 of the Nevada Civil Code aka Nevada Revised Statues (NRS) which governs associations is to have business of the corporation conducted as openly as possible. Accordingly, most association business is conducted at open session board meetings to which members may attend.

NRS 116.31085 permits some association business to be conducted behind closed doors, i.e. in executive sessions, due to its sensitivity and to protect the individual privacy of association members. Routine executive sessions are held every month. Emergency executive sessions are seldom held.

To paraphrase NRS 116.31085 the ONLY topics allowed for executive sessions are:

(a) Consult with the attorney for the association on matters relating to proposed or pending litigation;

(b) Discuss the character, alleged misconduct, professional competence, or physical or mental health of a community manager or an employee of the association;

(c) Discuss a violation of the governing documents, including without limitation, the failure to pay an assessment;

(d) Discuss the alleged failure of a unit’s owner to adhere to certain schedules relating to the design, construction, occupancy or use of a unit or its improvement;

(e) Hold a hearing on an alleged violation of the governing documents unless the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted.

Which of these would any private golf club matter fit into. Maybe (a) or (c)???

Any matter discussed in executive session must be generally noted in the minutes of the open session. That means the topic excluding any names and addresses of persons involved. So Doc, we’ll wait and see.

SU Editorial Note: Mr. Bower seems to believe that the emergency session may relate to a Somersett Golf & Country Club issue. However, SU has no information in this regard. Perhaps something related to the Rockery Wall lawsuit, where motions by both plaintiffs and defendants for summary judgments have been recently filed with the Court.  Since the meeting announcement did not address any subject matter, only time will tell!

Somersett Golf & Country Club 2018 Financial Summary

The following table represents a summary of the Somersett Golf & Country Club’s (SGCC) revenue and expense data for the years following turnover from the Somersett Developer to its Equity Members. The table has been updated to include the 2018 financials. All financial data contained in the following table are derived from the SGCC’s IRS Form 990’s, which require submittal by May 15th of the following year and become available for public inspection. The SOA Revenue Column represent monies provided to the SGCC from Somersett Owners Association (SOA) funds as indicated by the corresponding “Notes”. Given the SOA’s investment and liabilities associated with the Real Property Purchase Agreement (see Note 5), the SGC’s financial health may be of interest to many Association members.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Full proprietary membership with voting rights, does not include non-permanent provisional or preview memberships

Table Notes:

  1. In the Fall of 2010, the Somersett Development Company negotiated early turnover of the SGCC to its Equity Members via Member majority vote.
  2. First year in which the SGCC was run entirely by Equity Members.
  3. In late 2011, the Developer controlled SOA Board voted to divert $15/month of homeowner assessments to the SGCC via a “Lease Agreement” in exchange for some SGCC access amenities. Agreement was to run for three years starting in January 2012 with optional 3 and 4-year renewal periods. The obvious purpose being to offset SGCC operating losses.
  4. SOA Revenue column represents the revenue the SGCC derived in years 2012, 2013 and 2014 from the SOA under the Lease Agreement described in Note 3 above. 2014 was the last year under this agreement after being declared improper by the Nevada Real Estate Board.
  5. As a replacement for the aforementioned Lease Agreement, in late 2014, a SGCC Real Property Purchase Agreement was approved by SOA owner majority vote. Under this agreement, the SOA purchased the SGCC land and water rights for $2,750,000 with a subsequent leaseback of the land and water rights to the SGCC at a base rate of $1000/year (subject to escalation) plus a fixed rent amount of $1200/year. Lease term is for 50 years with two SGCC optional 20-year renewal periods. SOA purchase funds were obtained via bank loan paid for via homeowner assessments.
  6. The SGCC 2015 negative revenue less expense amount was primarily due to the $2,750.000 sale price income (see Note 5) minus a reported sales expense (asset loss) of $4,294,781.

For those interested in the details associated with the listed 2018 revenues and expenses, the SGCC’s complete 2018 Form 990 may be accessed via the following link:

SGCC 2018 Form 990

Comments:

  1. Although far short of the 450 equity member goal, the SGCC continues to increase its equity membership, which is now at 293 or up 37 from the previous year.
  2. The SunSett Grille appears to be doing much better as the SGCC’s Food & Beverage revenue is up $330K over 2017. If you haven’t already been there, give it a try.
  3. The SGCC’s $313K in revenue derived from the SOA via the Canyon9 maintenance contract was not in effect for 2018. The contract for 2018 and 2019 was awarded to Reno Green on a cost basis. It is unclear how this may have contributed to the increase in the 2018 negative revenue less expense amount.
  4. Yet to be determined is SGCC’s financial liability for the Rockery Wall failures on property leased from the SOA by the SGCC under the 2014 Real Property Purchase Agreement (i.e., the SGCC Hole 5 hillside failures). For expeditious reasons, required repairs were initiated and paid for by the SOA. However, the SOA contends that the SGCC is liable for these repairs under the Purchase Agreement’s Warranty and Property Maintenance Provisions. Although started, legal action was placed on hold until June 30th, 2019 by a mutually agreed upon “Tolling Agreement”, under which the SGCC is paying the SOA $500/month to help offset loan interest fees. It is assumed that the Tolling Agreement was put in place pending results of the ongoing Chapter 40 lawsuit against the Somersett Development Company et. al. However, given that June 30th is just around the corner, and the Chapter 40 lawsuit is still unresolved, will the Tolling Agreement be extended, or will the SOA now proceed with legal action against the SGCC?
  5. Also, to be determined is the SGCC’s future liabilities associated with required repair/replacement of the Canyon9 and SGCC Water Supply System components, which have been estimated as high as $700K over the next five years. The SGCC’s responsibilities in this area are fully defined under the Waiter Facilities Agreement between the SOA and the SGCC. Given that the vast majority of the total water supply is for SGCC course irrigation, the majority of the repair and replacement costs will become the responsibility of the SGCC. This issue is currently under discussion between the two parties regarding liabilities and repair timing.

Somersett West Park Contract Award

Item C.5 On the Reno City Council & Redevelopment Agency Board Meeting (Wednesday June 12th, 10:00 AM, Reno City Council Chamber) is quoted as follows:

C.5. Staff Report (For Possible Action): Award of Contract to Spanish Springs Construction for construction of Somersett West Park in the anount of $!,734,444. (RCT District 2 and Various Grant Funds)

a. Bid Opening and Award – STAFF REPORT
b. Vicinity Map

Regarding item a, bid details are available via the following link:   Bid Opening-Somersett West Park

This is obvious good news for Somersett residents (hopefully no obstacles will arise in contract award), who have long awaited construction of this park as required under the Somersett Planned Unit Development (PUD).

Funds for park construction come from the City of Reno (new construction revenue), organizational grants and private donations. Total budget for the park, as currently designed, has been estimated at $1,500,000. The City of Reno’s portion being approximately $850,000, which leaves the gap to be filled via grants and donations. Current grants include $200,000 from Nevada State Parks through the US Land & Water Conservation Fund, and $25,000 obtained by the Somersett Owners Association from the “Petsafe Bark for Your Park” program. For donations, the SOA has partnered with the Truckee Meadows Parks Foundation (TMPF) for support. Those wishing to donate may do so via the following TMPF website, which also contains a description of the park.

www.tmparksfoundation.org/somersett-west-park

Note that one has the option of donating to an overall General Park Fund or, if so desired, directly to a specific amenity (i.e., Park Equipment, Pavillion, Community Garden, Dog Park or a Memorial Paver). How much has been raised to date is not indicated on the referenced TMPF link. However, it has been previously reported that a shortfall still exists between the total project budget and currently available funds, therefore requiring a “phased” construction approach. Perhaps one of our readers (e.g., SOA Board Member, Management Staff ot Ex West Park Committee Member) can provide some additional input here.

Gypsy Hill Rockery Wall Photos

Per the SOA, the Gypsy Hill Trail Rockery Wall Repairs are now completed, except for landscaping the tiers.  Photos, from top to bottom, depict: 1) Shotcrete installation, 2) Wall anchor locations, 3) Completed wall with decorative overlay (not too bad looking by itself) and 4)  Repaired wall compared to original wall (what do you think?)