October 13th SOA Board Meeting Recap

recap 1

Following is a summary of discussions and actions taken by the Board at the October 13th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board Meeting. The Meeting Agenda may be accessed below. For background information on some of the agenda items see SU’s previous post of October 9, 2021 entitled “October 13th SOA Board Meeting”.

October 13, 2021 Board Meeting Agenda

A summary of Board actions/discussion on agenda items follow:

2. Homeowner Comments:

There were no homeowner comments pertaining to agenda items

3. September 22, 2021 Meeting Minutes

The September 22nd BOD Meeting Minutes were approved. See SU post of September 25, 2021 “September 22nd SOA Board Meeting Recap” for a more detailed look at what transpired.

4. Committee Reports:

a. Budget & Finance – The Finance Committee recommended approval of the August Financial Statements

b. Communications – A summary of Communication Committee activities was reported on. These included:

      • Questions to Board Member candidates for “Candidate Night” (October 26) response have been developed and forwarded to the candidates.
      • Committee is working on the preparation of emergency documents (e.g., what to do in case of emergencies) as required by OSHA. These will address: 1) a Board Level Plan, 2) a TCTC Plan and 3) Resident Information.
      • Vendor adds on the SOA website are generating $5-10K in revenue.
      • Bill Shollenberger was recommended for and subsequently approved as a member of the Communications Committee

c. Strategic & Facilities – Committee is working on a variety of TCTC projects including: 1) ordering the previously approved tennis court dividers, 2) interior lighting improvements, 3) background music for the main floor (Board member O,Donnell had some comments/suggestions on what to consider for this project), 4) pool deck expansion and installation of shade sails, 5) kitchen revamping, and 6) gym space alterations and free weight additions.

d. West Park Garden – No report

e. Community Events – The Committee requested $10,000 for TCTC holiday decorations and some minor furniture repairs. This was approved with funds being re-allocated from the snack bar improvement project, which came in way under budget.

f. Technology Advisory – The reader is refereed to the following “October Report to the SOA Board from the Advisory Technology Committee” for a summary of projects the Committee is working on, which include improvements to the following: 1) Camera and communication systems for both TCTC and Security Gates, 2) Server and Internet access systems, 3) the Phone system, and 4) the Point of Sale system, wherein the Committee recommends switching to Square POS and requiring “cash free” transactions for all SOA activities except the payment of assessments. The objective of these projects being to use new technologies to reduce overall costs while improving both service and security, with the Gates camera system being established as the top priority. There was also a discussion on the need for coordinating with the BRAE and The Cliffs Developers on camera installations. Whereas the Board endorsed all of the preceding, no action was taken pending the presentation of actual vendor quotes to act on.

.5.  Financials:

a. Treasurers Report – The SOA Treasurer was not in attendance. The Board President gave the following summary report: 1) Operating Cash $2.4M, 2) Reserves $8.1M, 3) Total Debt $4.0 M and 4) Surplus of revenue over expenditures $898K through August 2021. Regarding item 4) some year end expenses may eat into this number, but a sizeable surplus is anticipated.

b. August Financials – The August financial statements were approved.

6. Unfinished Business:

a. Legal Updates – Nothing new to report on the Preston Homes lawsuit against Ryder Homes and four others (including the SOA), which is being handled by the SOA’s insurance company. This represents the only outstanding lawsuit against the SOA.

b. SOA Transition Update – Nancy Kerry, the SOA’s Management Transition Coordinator, provided an update on some of the transition activities, with the conclusion that all is going well with no significant problems to date, and that all owners will be receiving a transition packet by US Mail in the next few days. She encouraged all to visit the “Transition” Page (Log-in required) on the SOA website (www.somersett.org) for information pertaining to: 1) The October 14th Homeowner Forum, 2) A copy of the Transition Welcome Packet, 3) an ACH Form authorizing electronic payment of Assessments, and 4) FAQ’s about the transition. This page will be updated with forthcoming information. Ms. Kerry advised that the SOA’s accounting system has now been transferred over to Taylor Association Management. If you have account questions, Taylor has a dedicated individual assigned to the SOA, Theresa Garcia, who can be reached at 702-250-3883.

c. Review and Approval of Common Area Easement – A carryover item from the the September 22nd Board meeting wherein a Somersett Owner is requesting the SOA to grant an exclusive non-revocable personal use easement to SOA property adjacent to the rear of his lot. Action was again tabled until the next Board Meeting pending additional information (i.e., land appraisal) from the owner.

7. New Business:

a. Review Information Systems Equipment Analysis, and authorize equipment and software purchases – This was accomplished under Item 4.f. above

b. Review and Approve Security Camera and Phone System – This was accomplished under Item 4.f. above

c. Unanimous Written Consent #81 Rock Wall Proposal from Parsons Walls – Acknowledgement of a proposal from Parsons Walls in the amount of $47,750 that was previously approved via the “Unanimous Written Consent” process. Proposal was for installation of a rockery wall on SOA property adjacent to 1880 Dove Mountain Court. Purpose being for hillside stabilization.

d. 2022 General Common, TCTC, Gates & Town Square Budgets – The 2022 Budget for all three cost centers (Common Area, TCTC, and Gates) were approved with some minor changes from that presented at the October 6th Budget Presentation Meeting, this primarily related to the addition of employee training expenses. Budget mailings to owners will be accomplished by August 27th for ratification at the November 15th Annual Members Meeting.

e. 2022 General Common, TCTC & Gates Reserve Study Updates – The Board approved the Browning Reserve Group’s Reserve Studies for each of the three SOA Cost Centers with a recommendation they be performed earlier in the year to be available prior to starting the 2023 budget review process.

f. Review and Approve Appointment of Nancy Kerry for the position of Community Manager – Nancy Kerry, who is currently serving as the SOA’s Transition Coordinator, was approved for the position of the Association’s Community Manager.

g. Review and Approve Agreement with UniqueHR for comprehensive personnel services – The Board approved Unique HR as the Association’s new HR and Payroll Services provider.

h. Policy Review – This agenda item addresses the periodic review of Association Policies. Those under review were the Collection, Compliance and Expense & Investment Policies. The Board had no suggested changes, therefore these will remain as is. New Personnel Policies pertaining to full time and part time SOA employees i.e., “PERSONNEL POLICIES RELATED TO PAID TIME OFF (PTO), HOLIDAYS and RETIREMENT” were amended with regard to forgotten Holidays and approved.

8. Board Meeting Comments:

The Board approved rescheduling the next Board meeting from October 20th to October 27th.

9. Homeowner Comments:

    • A question as to where Zoom Videoconference links to SOA Meetings could be found. Response being that these were included within the meeting notices identified on the SOA Meeting Calendar. The calendar being available on the SOA website via the “SOA Board and Committees/Meeting Calendar” page links
    • A question on whether or not the cameras within the Vue and Villages Sub-Associations are part of the SOA camera upgrade project. The answer being that they are not and are the responsibility of the Sub-Associations.

October 13th SOA Board Meeting

BOD Agenda 3

Following is the Agenda for the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting to be held at The Club at Town Center (TCTC) at 5:30 PM on Wednesday, October 13th. Attendance may be either in person or via Zoom Video Conference. Zoom log-in instructions are contained on the Meeting Agenda under “Join Meeting via Zoom”

October 13, 2021 Board Meeting Agenda

The Board Meeting Packet for the October 13th Board meeting is available on the SOA website (www.somersett.org) under the SOA Documents/Board Documents/2021 page link. Some extractions from the Board Meting Packet are included in the following Agenda Item comments.

Comments on Agenda Items:

4. Committee Reports:

a. Budget & Finance – No report contained in the Board Meeting Packet. The Board Treasurer, Simon Baker, usually provides a verbal update.

b. Communications – See the following link:  October Communication Committee Report

c. Strategic & Facilities – See the following link:  October Facilities Committee Report

d. West Park Garden – No report contained in the Board Meeting Packet

e. Community Events – See the following link:  October Events Committee Report

f. Technology Advisory – See the following link: October Technology Committee Report

5. Financials: The usual 30+ pages of Association financial data. The reader is referred to the Board Meeting Packet on the SOA website for details.

6. Unfinished Business:

a. Legal Updates – Nothing new to report on the Preston Homes lawsuit against Ryder Homes and four others (including the SOA), which is being handled by the SOA’s insurance company. As previously reported, the SOA’s rockery wall lawsuit against the Somersett Development Company et al. is essentially over and done with, except the following as reported in the October 1, 2021 SOA Attorney letter: “On July 29, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court denied the Association’s appeal. The Defendants still have a short time period in which to file an itemized and verified bill of costs, which likely will be less than a thousand dollars. If that is timely filed, the Association will have to pay such costs and the case will be over. If the defendants do not timely file such motion the case will be over”. From the amount referenced, SU assumes this pertains to miscellaneous court costs and not legal costs.

b. SOA Transition Update – An update on the SOA Management Transition status to be presented by the Association’s Transition Coordinator, Nancy Kerry.

c. Review and Approval of Common Area Easement – A carryover item from the the September 22nd Board meeting wherein a Somersett Owner is requesting the SOA to grant an exclusive non-revocable personal use easement to the SOA property adjacent to the rear of his lot. Apparently the Owner will be addressing the Board on this request. For background information see the following link:  Michel Burke Easement Request Letter

7. New Business:

a. Review Information Systems Equipment Analysis, and authorize equipment and software purchases  –  A review of the Technology Review Committee recommendations. See the following link;  Report to the SOA Board from the Advisory Technology Committee

b. Review and Approve Security Camera and Phone System  –  A subset of the Technology Review Committee Report referenced in item 7.a. above.  It is not clear as to what, if anything, is to be approved at this time.

c. Unanimous Written Consent #81 Rock Wall Proposal from Parsons Walls  –  Represents an acknowledgement of a $47,750 proposal from Parsons for installation of a rockery wall to resolve the common area slop erosion behind 1880 Dove Mountain Court, which was approved via the Unanimous Written Consent Process. Note that this process is generally applied when timing constraints prevent delaying approvals until the next Board meeting.

d. 2022 General Common, TCTC, Gates & Town Square Budgets – The Board Packet contains the final proposed 2022 budgets for Board approval. For a summary overview, see the previous SU Post of August 8th entitled:  “SOA 2022 Budget Presentation”.

e. 2022 General Common, TCTC & Gates Reserve Study Updates – The Board Packet contains an update (dated September 2, 2021) of the Browning Reserve Group’s Reserve Studies for each of the three SOA Cost Centers (i.e., Common Area, TCTC and Gates). Results projected for 2022 show reserve funding levels as follows: Common Area – 61.0%, TCTC – 46.4%, Gates – 95.8%. Not sure why TCTC has dropped down to 46.4%, but should be looked by the Board. While there is no Nevada requirement for reserve funding levels, and those in the 40-50% range can be considered adequate, a general rule of thumb is that 70% is considered “strong” and a desired level of achievement.

f. Review and Approve Appointment of Nancy Kerry for the position of Community Manager – Just a formality as the Board has already announced their intention of hiring Nancy Kerry (currently serving as the SOA’s Transition Coordinator) as the Association’s Community Manager.

g. Review and Approve Agreement with UniqueHR for comprehensive personnel services – At the September 22nd Board Meeting, The Board approved moving forward with Unique HR as the Association’s new HR and Payroll Services provider. However, the Board Packet also contains proposals from ADP and Nevada Payroll Services. It appears these proposals were obtained as an afterthought to compare with UniqueHR. Although there are large price differences, they apparently are not considered comparable to UniqueHR and it is anticipated the Board will approve the Unique HR Agreement. See the following memo from the SOA’s Transition Coordinator Nancy Kerry:  Agreement with UniqueHR

h. Policy Review – The Board Packet contains copies of the existing Collection, Compliance and Expense & Investment Policies with no identified changes. Therefore, not sure what changes are under consideration, if any. Also included are proposed  Personnel Policies (i.e., Paid Time Off, Holidays and Retirement) for those full and part time Association employees after November 1, 2021. See the following link:  Association Personnel Policies

SOA 2022 Budget Presentation

Budget 4

On October 6th, the Annual Homeowner Budget Presentation Meeting was held at The Club at Town Center (TCTC). Attendance was available either in person or via Zoom Videoconference. The presentation was conducted by the SOA Board President Mark Capalongan. For those who were unable to attend, a copy of the presentation material and access to the video file is available on the SOA website (www.soa.org) on the “SOA Documents/Financial Documents/Annual Budgets” page. For reader convenience these may also be accessed via the following links:

2022 SOA Budget Presentation
2022 SOA Budget Presentation Zoom Recording

The Budget Presentation PowerPoint document summarizes all the projected 2022 revenues and expenses for the  Common Area, The Club at Town Center and Private Gates & Streets Cost Centers. New items and significant changes from the 2021 Budget are highlighted on the presentation document. Comments follow:

  • For the Common Area Cost Center, monthly assessments will be increased from $105/month to $108/month. This to account for increased landscaping costs, reserve transfers, and general inflationary expenses. The budgeted increase in landscaping costs represent a 40% increase over 2021, which raises the question, why so much? Certainly not due to inflation, therefore did our Request for Proposal require additional services over that for previous years? Perhaps this will be revealed in more detail when the Board selects the approved vendor (three vendors have submitted proposals, which are currently undergoing analysis). Increasing the reserve transfer makes perfect sense as the Common Area reserves are below recommended reserve funding levels (i.e. approximately 50% as opposed to 64% for the TCTC and 116% for the Gates). This a result of the past drawdown to pay for the rockery wall repairs.
  • The TCTC and Private Gates monthly assessments remain unchanged at $89/month and $50/month respectively.
  • The SOA debt currently consists of approximately $3.3M for the Common Area (primarily due to rockery wall repair loans) and $1.6M for TCTC (primarily due to reimbursement costs originally owed to the Developer). Any surpluses of 2022 revenues over expenses will be targeted to paying down these debts, also a good idea. What was not discussed is how any 2021 surpluses will be handled. At the September BOD meeting the Board Treasurer reported that for 2021, excesses of revenue over expenses were currently running at $716K for the Common Area and $193K for TCTC. However, this did not address any significant expenses not yet accounted for. The recommendation being to use any year end surpluses to pay down the debt.

The finalized 2022 Budget will be formally approved at the October 13th Board Meeting. The approved Budget will be mailed to all owners no later than November 1st and ratified at the November 15th Annual Owners Meeting. Note that ratification is essentially assured, as rejection of the budget by owners would require a monumental task! Check out the following from Article II of the Association CC&R’s:

Section 6. Budget. The Board shall adopt a proposed budget for each calendar year based on the projected common expenses of the Association, which shall include a reasonable reserve, Within thirty (30) days after adoption of any proposed budget for the Association, the Board shall provide a summary of the budget to the Owners, and shall set a date for a meeting of the Owners to consider ratification of the budget not less than fourteen (14) nor more than thirty days after mailing of the summary. Unless at that meeting seventy-five percent (75%) of all voting power of Owners rejects the budget, the budget is ratified, whether or not a quorum is present If the proposed budget is rejected, the periodic budget last ratified by the Owners must be continued until such time as the Owners ratify a subsequent budget proposed by the Board.

If one has any objections to or comments on the proposed 2022 Budget, it is probably too late to have any impact. These should have been addressed at the previously held and announced July and August Budget Workshops which were open to owners.  However, one may still state or submit their comments, prior to final approval, during the Homeowner Comment session at the beginning of the October 13th Board Meeting.

SU Article Posting and Disclaimer

disclaimer

After receiving some inquires on who can or who cannot post articles on the SomersettUnited website, I thought it timely to address this issue once again. The short answer is any Association member may post an article. However, there are rules that apply and are contained within the “About” page on this website. These are repeated below:

Blog Posts and Comment Submittals

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, profane or personal attack 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.

No Personal, Business or Political advertisements will be entertained either in posting or commenting. Adds for non-profit events may be considered.

Unless a submitted post violates the intent of the preceding, SU will not edit or fact check the content of a submitted post and will publish the article as written. It is not SU’s policy to censor the opinions of others whether or we agree or disagree with the content.

Therefore, it should be understood that the views and opinions expressed in articles or comments posted by others on this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policy or opinions of SU.

Jim Haar
SomersettUnited Editor and Webmaster

2021 SOA BOD Candidates

elections 2

Four candidates have submitted their applications to run for the for the two open Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Director (BOD) positions.

Candidate statements, resumes and pictures have been published on the SOA website (www.somersett.org) under the “SOA Board and Committees” link and are repeated below for the convenience of our readers:

Clint Maples           Clint Maples Candidate Statement and Resume

Anna Oleo Moger            Anna Olea Moger Candidate Statement and Resume

Plete Platt            Pete Platt Candidate Statement and Resume

Barney Siri            Barney Siri Candidate Statement

Candidate Statements and Ballots will be mailed to Association Members no later than October 15th. These must be received at the SOA no later than 1:00 PM on November 15th (i.e., date of the Annual Members Meeting).

Ballots will be counted at the Annual Members Meeting to be held a The Club at Town Center (TCTC) from 4:00–6:00 PM on November 15, 2021. The successful candidates will be announced at the Meeting.

A “Meet the Candidates Night” will be held at TCTC from 6:00-8:00 PM on October 26th. Candidates will be asked a series of relevant questions prepared by the Communications Committee, along with their own opening and closing statements. Time will also be allotted for responding to questions posed by attendees. For those not wishing to attend in person, this session will also  be available to via Zoon Videoconferencing.

Given that the submitted Candidate Statements were limited to one page, this forum is open to any candidate who may wish to expand on their qualifications and purpose for seeking a Board position. (Note: Board candidate Barney Siri apparently did not include a supplemental one page statement with his submittal. SU believes this will put him at a disadvantage when owners receive their ballot package. Perhaps it is still time to get it included within the Ballot package). Candidates wishing to post expanded statements on SU may do so by email to the following address.

somersettunited@gmail.com

As always. reader comments on any of the above candidates are solicited and welcome.

Here We Are In October

The following post submitted by Vince Loving, Association Member

Here we are in October, budget, and election season.

We lost one board member some 8 months ago, due to the attitude and practices of the board, and the SOA board chose to manage their unified voting block by leaving the position open; without any dissenting votes to slow progress…some might call this a rubber stamp for an agenda. Now the greatest asset the board has, the treasurer, is moving to get away from the community…the very last voice of reason on the board (so go the optics).

It seems an eternity since Somersett mistakenly voted for a 3 block of candidates running as one, sadly, the level of apathy throughout the community ensured that fewer than 900 homeowners voted, and the 3 amigos took their vote/election as confirmation that all 3500 homeowners wanted to turn the rules upside down. The apathy continues and grows.

As these three cowboys rode roughshod over everything that is Somersett, it was certainly interesting to see three homeowners, with less than a year (collectively) as residents of Somerset, that disliked so much about Somerset. In fact, one member didn’t even have a certificate of occupancy from the city until 3 weeks after the election.

We hear statements like “Somersett should be happier” and “Somersett should have more of a resort feel” leaving those without the rose-colored glasses asking ourselves “Why did they move here if they hate what it is?”

Prior to the current board, Somersett had its share of issues with board members who had conflicts of interest, like serving on the SOA and the country club boards simultaneously and an abundance of terrible legal advice from the firm the community retained as legal counsel. But we dealt with the issues and moved on…voted the conflicts off the board and moved on.

One current starry-eyed member of the board, wanted to gate the community while he was running for office. The same starry-eyed member seems to want to annex property from the city as communal area at any and every turn. The same member thinks we should foot the bill for another pool because the current pool is too crowded 5 or 6 weekends a year, after all, it is only another $250,000 or so, why wouldn’t we do it? The community has deep pockets, and we are still only millions deep in debt, for the TCTC, as it currently stands…why wouldn’t we spend money we don’t have for something we don’t need? If it’s too crowded, build your own pool and eliminate the need to use the overly crowded community pool.

And then there is the current RFP for landscape services. “We didn’t rubber stamp the renewal from Brightview” …Bravo! Unfortunately, we have allowed the previous contractor to bid on this RFP…despite the fact they planted trees in plastic nursery containers and cost the SOA somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 trees…despite the tumult over curb-dings from that same group plowing snow…despite the mess that Brightview is still trying to resolve with our irrigation after two full years on the job. But if the board had more experience in the community, they would have immediately disqualified the Reno Green bid before opening it. Ah, but you get what you pay for!

Oh, but wait, we can replace all the grass along Somersett Parkway with synthetic turf for $700K and save replacing a 20-year-old irrigation system for $1M, never mind that we still need to replace the irrigation system to support the other greenery, which ultimately brings the project in at $1.7M. This is the approach to project management that only a former politician can design.

Now the budget is in front of us, there is a proposed $3/month increase for common areas, the same common areas that these cowboys wanted to annex from the city. One truly must wonder why you would want to annex a liability from the city that our taxes already pay for. It may be prudent to look at cutting back on the $35K budget for the party planning committee and focus on charging a fee for activities and events that a few residents participate in, rather than charging us all.

We all have access to TCTC, and we all have access to Canyon 9, but what do we really get from the SOA? Seriously, we are kept in debt. The last management company we had (to be gone October 31) grew weary of the constant brow-beating the board gave them rather than managing the vendor more closely. The board lost sight of their responsibility…managing the vendors. Instead, we get crocodile tears over how much work it is to be on the board, yet the 3 cowboys have made the board membership a full-time job,” Poor me, this is a 40-50 hour a week job”, to which I say, “This is your own doing, no one else”.

Oddly enough, the 3 cowboys believe and tout that our values are going up fast due to their intervention in the day-to-day of the SOA, perhaps they don’t understand real estate and the current boom market? Homes are selling everywhere in Nevada in the first 3 days, and most frequently for “over asking”.

November 2022 cannot come fast enough for many of us, once these 3 are out of office, only then will divergent opinion be valued again. Only then will irresponsible spending be quelled.

September 22nd SOA Board Meeting Recap

Following is a summary of discussions and actions taken by the Board at the September 22nd Board Meeting. The Meeting Agenda may be accessed below:

September 22nd BOD Meeting Agenda

Comments follow with Agenda items noted:

Item 2. Homeowner Comments:

Two Owners submitted written comments on Agenda Items to be read into the record. These pertained Agenda Item 7.c “Review and Approval of Common Area Easement” and may be accessed via the following links.

September 22nd Agenda Item 7.c. Comment 1
September 22nd Agenda Item 7.c. Comment 2

Item 3. August 25th and September 8th 202 Meeting Minutes:

The Board approved the Meeting Minutes for both dates. However, for a more detailed recap of these meetings, the reader is referred to the following SU Posts:

September 8th SOA Special Board Meeting Summary
August 25th SOA Board Meeting Recap

Item 4. Committee Reports:

4.a. Budget & Finance – No written report submitted,. However, Board Treasurer Baker advised that the Committee recommended approval of the July 31st Financial Statements, which will be summarized under Agenda item 5 below.

4.b. Communications – See the following “Communications Committee Report”. No Board actions were required. However, the Board reaffirmed their position in support of the Committee to move forward in creating a list of Somersett residents willing to help others through the proposed Somersett Cares program. It was also reported that the Ad-hoc “Technology Review Committee” will have their report to the Board by September 30th. The Board President commented that the Committee will be issuing a series of communications to residents on submittal of assessment payments as a result of the Association transition to self-management.

4.c. Strategic and Facilities – See the following “Facilities Committee Report”. No update on specific projects, but a committee member commented on the new format (i.e., more complete information) the Committee would be using in providing project recommendations to the Board.

4.d. West Park Garden – See the following “Community Garden Committee Report”. In addition, a reminder of the Fall Social (Community picnic) being held at the West Park on October 7th, which will include live music, garden tour and the sale of food and drinks to raise money for the Community Garden.

4.e. Community Events – See the following “Events Committee Report”. The Board approved the Committee recommendation to modify the Committee Charter to increase the number of members from 9 to 12. The Board also approved issuance of a Credit Card ($5,000 limit) for use by the Committee for the purchase of incidental items associated with planned events, citing timeliness issues. This was passed on a 3 to 1 vote, with Board member Baker dissenting on the basis it should be part of a broader Purchase Card Program that would have to be implemented as part of the transition process.

4.d. General Manager – The SOA General manager, Ryan Fields, reported that regarding the upcoming Board of Director elections, zero candidate Statements had been received (Note: this provided the basis for SU’s previous post of September 23rd “Urgent Call for SOA Board of Director Candidates”. Also reported that with regard to Agenda Item 7.d. “Approval of Common Area Turnover from Ryder Homes”, a walkthrough with BrightView was performed with the observation that all punch list items had been completed. Three dead trees and two dead shrubs were noted.

Item 5. Financials:

The Board approved the July 31st financial statements. Financial summaries as of July 31st were reported as follows:

    • Total Operating Cash of $2.31M ($1.4M Common Area and $834K TCTC)
    • Total Reserves of $8.03M ($2.78M Common Area, $1.55M TCTC and $3.7M Private Gates)
    • Total Debt of $4.0M ($3.2M Common Area and $839K TCTC)
    • Revenues vs Expenses ($716K excess revenue over expenses for Common Area and $193K excess revenue over expenses for TCTC).

The Board Treasurer, Simon Baker, recommended that the Board consider applying excess revenues to paying down the debt. There was also some discussion on the use of reserves to pay down the debt that reached no conclusions.

Item 6. Unfinished Business:

6.a. Legal Updates – A placeholder agenda item, nothing new to report.

6.b. 1880 Dove Mountain – The owner at 1880 Dove Mountain met with the Board in executive session to discuss his concerns about this hillside stabilization project adjacent to his property. Apparently, the engineered solution has been completed and the Board is now awaiting a sealed bid from Parsons Bros. for the required work. Given that only one bid is being received, the intent is to open the bid prior to the next Board meeting and use the Unanimous Written Consent process to expedite approvals due to time constraints.

6.c. SOA Management Consultant Update – Another placeholder agenda item no longer required given that the analysis and decision to transition to a self-managed organization has been completed. The Management Consultant, Nancy Kerry, is now employed as the “Transition Coordinator” and future updates (general or specific) will be discussed under this category.

6.d. Agreement with Village Management Software – This agenda item was tabled for discussion in order to consider it along with other transition item approvals later in the meeting. Although not specifically addressed, the VMS software agreement was essentially approved as part of the approved Transition Plan.

Item 7. New Business:

7.a. Review and Open landscaping Bids and Proposals – Three Bids were received. Price points for each are summarized below:

    • Brightview submitted three options covering years 1, 2 and 3 priced as follows: Option 1 – $1.254M, $1.304M, $1.357M. Option 2 – $1.468M. $1.527M, $1.588M. Option 3 – $2.101M, 2.185M, $2.272M.
    • Reno Green submitted a bid priced at $132,192/month capped at $1.574M annually
    • Reliance Grounds Management bid was priced at $117,994/month capped at $1.297M annually

Due to the complexity of the proposals and the differences associated with scope, price adders and credits, the preceding price points could not be compared on a strict “apples to apples” basis. Hence they were referred to the Facilities Committee for further analysis and recommendations.

In response to a question on what the SOA was currently paying, Simon Baker advised that the 2021 budget was $1.13M. Based on the received quotes, the proposed 2022 budget of $1.2M will obviously require an increase.

7.b. Review and Approval of 2020 Audit – The 2020 Audit Report prepared by Hilburn and Lein CPA’s was approved.

7.c. Review and Approval of Common Area Easement – This item pertains to an owner request for the SOA to grant an exclusive non-revocable easement to SOA property adjacent to the rear of his lot. After much discussion the approval was tabled pending further discussion with the requesting owner on property worth and insertion of a revocability clause.

7.d. Approval of Common Area Turnover from Ryder Homes – It was determined that no action was required at this time. Apparently, Ryder has already deeded the land over to the SOA (i.e., without SOA involvement) and there was a question as to the ramifications a formal approval would have on the current lawsuit between Preston Homes and Ryder in which the SOA is also included.

7.e. Review and Approval of SOA Management Staffing and Transition Plan – The SOA Transition Coordinator, Nancy Kerry, conducted a PowerPoint presentation to the Board summarizing current status of the action items required in the transition to the self-managed Association. This was basically a summary of items and responsibilities from the following “SOA Transition and Salary Plan” report included in the Board Meeting Packet. It concluded with the following requested Board actions:

    • Discuss and Consider Approval of the Transition Plan – Transition Plan Approved
    • Discuss and Consider Approval of the Salary Schedule – Approved salary schedule and issuance of offer letters.
    • Discuss and Consider Unique HR Solutions or other Benefit Solutions – Approved moving forward with Unique HR as the Association’s new HR and Payroll Services provider.
    • Discuss and Consider Opening New Bank Accounts at CIT – Approved the opening of operating fund bank accounts at CIT

Note: It is anticipated that the referenced PowerPoint presentation will become available on the SOA website (www.somerett.org) under the “Future of Management in Somersett” page, or by accessing the meeting videoconference file at:

https://us06web.zoom.us/rec/share/iPdegP1LKCEpULEMgaKQ-7FueKh3MYg8o668-Yyi2mdIXSIcFPvYdqfkS7LJYKsZ.4Hx6Ag9XUJ97T-kF

Use Access Passcode: 649*U%jQ

7.f. Review and Approval of Consulting Agreement with Lorrie Olsen – The Board approved the hiring of Ms. Olsen (at $1500/week) to provide her expertise and assistance in the transition process to a self-managed Association. See the following: “Agreement for Consulting Services”.

7.g. Proposal to install Divider netting Between Tennis Courts – The Board approved the expenditure of up to $3000 to install a divider net between the two Tennis Courts at the Town Center.

Item 8. Board Member Comments:

  • The next SOA Board Meeting is scheduled for October 13th.
  • Apparently the Board will not be holding open interviews for the Community Manager position, as the Board President, Mark Capalongan, announced the Boards intention to hire Nany Kerry as the SOA’s first Community Manager. This should not be a surprise to many, as it has been evident from the beginning, despite any comments to the contrary, a pre-ordained outcome.
  • Board Member O’Donnell criticized FirstServices Residential for their refusal to provide the SOA with employee information required of the new HR and Payroll Services provider. Also, commented on a couple of unacceptable FSR employee actions at SOA’s expense.  It was clear that Mr. O’Donnell is seeking better cooperation between the parties as we move through the transition process.
  • Board member Simon Baker announced his impending departure from the Board due to his moving out of Somersett, and in doing so acknowledged the hard work and the positive direction the current Board members were taking the Association. The other Board members responded with the well-deserved kudos for his service. Mr. Baker’s service as the Association’s Treasurer will be sorely missed and hard to replace.

Item 9. Homeowner Comments:

  • A The Cliffs owner presented the Board with a list of issues the Board needs to consider before any turnover of Common Areas are effected. The Board advised that Tholl Bros. has been upfront with the SOA in requesting and identifying any issues the SOA may have, which is in process. It was noted that some of the SOA identified issues coincide with what the owner presented. Also, that Tholl Bros. has a performance bond with the city that cannot be released until all landscape requirements are met.
  • An owner concern that if the SOA website is managed by FSR how will their departure affect it. Response was that the SOA website is managed by a third party and will not be affected by FSR’s departure.
  • Given that the Canyon9 Golf Course has a different landscape contract from the balance of the SOA, could money be saved by including it within the SOA landscape contract. Response being that the problem is that they have different expiration dates.

As always, SU apologizes for any misrepresentations or errors associated with the above recap, especially in paraphrasing Board Member or Owner comments.

Urgent Call for SOA Board of Director Candidates

candidates 1

There are two SOA Board of Director positions open for election this year. These constitute the position that has remained open following the resignation of Craig Hanson earlier this year, and the position currently held by Simon Baker who will not be running for re-election due to a pending relocation of residence outside of Somersett. The current Board positions held by Mark Capalongan, Bill O’Donnell and Jacob Williams are not up for re-election.

Here is the problem! To date no Somersett owner has submitted a Candidate Statement announcing his/her intention to run. A situation not previously encountered in past elections. If no one chooses to run for these two open seats, what are the consequences? Lets look at applicable law!

Per the SOA Bylaws:

Section 3.02. NUMBER OF DIRECTORS AND QUALIFICATIONS. The number of directors shall be set by the Board, provided that there shall be not less than three (3) director positions and not more than five (5), and provided further that the Board may not reduce the number of director positions if the reduction has the effect of eliminating a director prior to the expiration of his or her term.

This means that if no candidates come forth, the current Board could vote to set the number of Directors at three, thereby assuring no diverse opinions from new Board Members, and no obligation to increase the number of Director positions back to five. NOT A GOOD ALTERNATIVE!

Per NRS 116.31034 (Nevada Law)

4.  Not less than 30 days before the preparation of a ballot for the election of members of the executive board, the secretary or other officer specified in the bylaws of the association shall cause notice to be given to each unit’s owner of the unit’s owner’s eligibility to serve as a member of the executive board. Each unit’s owner who is qualified to serve as a member of the executive board may have his or her name placed on the ballot along with the names of the nominees selected by the members of the executive board or a nominating committee established by the association.

5.  Before the secretary or other officer specified in the bylaws of the association causes notice to be given to each unit’s owner of his or her eligibility to serve as a member of the executive board pursuant to subsection 4, the executive board may determine that if, at the closing of the prescribed period for nominations for membership on the executive board, the number of candidates nominated for membership on the executive board is equal to or less than the number of members to be elected to the executive board at the election, then:
(a) The association will not prepare or mail any ballots to units’ owners pursuant to this section; and
(b) The nominated candidates shall be deemed to be duly elected to the executive board at the meeting of the units’ owners at which the ballots would have been counted pursuant to paragraph (e) of subsection 15.

6.  If the executive board makes the determination set forth in subsection 5, the secretary or other officer specified in the bylaws of the association shall disclose the determination and the provisions of subsection 5 with the notice given pursuant to subsection 4.

7.  If, at the closing of the prescribed period for nominations for membership on the executive board, the number of candidates nominated for membership on the executive board is less than the number of members to be elected to the executive board at the election, the executive board may fill the remaining vacancies on the executive board by appointment of the executive board at a meeting of the executive board held after the candidates are elected pursuant to subsection 5. Any such person appointed to the executive board shall serve as a member of the executive board until the next regularly scheduled election of members of the executive board. An executive board member elected to a previously appointed position which was temporarily filled by board appointment pursuant to this subsection may only be elected to fulfill the remainder of that term.

This means that if an insufficient number of candidates apply, the Board may appoint Directors to fill the positions until the next scheduled election, which would most likely consist of those who agree with their agendas. Also not a good alternative, but much better than the preceding.

Best Solution

For at least two Somersett owners step up to the bar and announce their candidacy. As it currently stands, this would guarantee election to the Board. However, this requires filling out the “Candidate Statement” and submitting it no later than October 1st to the SOA office at The Club at Town Center.

As stated above, if two or less Candidate Statements are submitted, they will be no mailing of Ballots and the Candidates will become Board members.

If three or more Candidate Statements are submitted, Ballots will be mailed out to Somersett Owners by October 15th and must be returned no later than 1:00 PM on November 15th, where they will then be counted at the November 15th Annual Owners Meeting.  In this case, a Candidate Night Forum to meet the Candidates and respond to questions will be held on October 26th.

New participation on the BOD is always a good thing. If you feel qualified and have a desire to serve your community, you are encouraged to submit your Board Candidate Statement. A copy of which may be obtained from the following link.  Candidates may also include an optional one-page statement with additional information supporting their candidacy, which is highly recommended as the Candidate Statement has little room for supplemental information.

SOA Board Candidate Statement

HERE’S HOPING THAT SOME CONCERNED HOMEOWNER(S) SUBMIT HIS OR HER CANDIDATE STATEMENT(S) PRIOR TO THE OCTOBER 31st DEADLINE. LEAVING THE FUTURE OF SOMERSETT IN THE HANDS OF THREE BOARD MEMBERS IS NOT A DESIREABLE OUTCOME!

Candidates wishing to announce and publish any document supporting their candidacy on this website may do so via email to somersettunited@gmail.com

 

September 22nd SOA Board Meeting

BOD Agenda 2

Following is the Agenda for the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting to be held at The Club at Town Center (TCTC) at 5:30 PM on Wednesday, September 22nd in the Canyon View Room. Attendance may be either in person or via Zoom videoconference. Zoom log-in instructions are contained on the Meeting Agenda under “Join via Zoom”

September 22nd BOD Meeting Agenda

The Board Meeting Packet for the September 22nd Board meeting is available on the SOA website (www.somersett.org) under the SOA Documents/Board Documents/2021 page link. Some extractions from the Board Packet are included in the following Agenda Item comments.

Comments on Agenda Items follow:

3.  August 25th and September 8th, 2021 Meeting Minutes

The reader is referred to the Board Meeting Packet for the SOA draft meeting minutes, However, for a more complete recap of these meetings, the reader is directed to the following SU posts:

September 8th SOA Special Board Meeting Summary
August 25th SOA Board Meeting Recap

4.  Committee Reports

4.a.  Budget & Finance – No information contained in the Board packet. The Board Treasurer, Simon Baker, usually provides a verbal update.

4.b.  Communications – See the following link: Communications Committee Report

4.c.  Strategic and Facilities – See the following link:  Facilities Committee Report.  (Note: This is now just a Facilities Committee with a new Strategic Planning Committee having been formed, but not yet included as an Agenda item).

4.d.  West Park Garden – See the following link: Community Garden Committee Report

4.e.  Community Events – See the following link:  Events Committee Report  (Note: report contains an updated Calendar of Events)

4.d.  General Manager – The reader is referred to the Board Meeting Packet for this multi-page report providing information and updates on: 1) AGC activity, 2) Community enforcement data, 3) Owner communications, 4) TCTC events and club usage data, 5) Maintenance projects, and 6) BrightView landscape reports.

5.  Financials

The usual 30+ pages of Association financial data. The reader is referred to the Board Meeting Packet on the SOA website for details.

6.  Unfinished Business

6.a.  Legal Updates – The following quote from the September 10th SOA Attorney letter to the Board regarding the Rockery Wall lawsuit: “On August 25,2021, the Nevada Supreme Court’s Judgement and July 29, 2021 Opinion was filed in the lower court. On September 7, 2021 the Nevada Supreme Court filed its Remittitur returning the case to the lower court. To date the opposing parties have not filed a memorandum if costs”. Not sure what impact this filing has on the SOA, as it has been previously reported that, in light of the SOA loosing its appeal, no more legal funds would be spent and that the SOA was not responsible for reimbursement of any of the Defendant’s legal fees.

6.b.  1880 Dove Mountain – No supporting information contained in the Board Meeting Packet for this long lingering hillside stabilization project. Perhaps just an impromptu update discussion.

6.c.  SOA Management Consultant Update – Usually consists of the SOA Management Consultant, Nancy Kerry, providing a status report on the SOA management transition process. Will most likely include items from the following report:

Transition Coordinator Update, September 10, 2021

6.d.  Agreement with Village Management Software (VMS) – The Management Company ,Taylor Associates, contracted for by the SOA as part of the Transition process, utilizes VMS Accounting and Project Management software to carry out their business. Since these functions will eventually be ported over to the SOA, a separate agreement with VMS is required. For those interested, a copy of the proposed Agreement (at a cost of $1580/month) is available via the following link.

Village Management Software Agreement

7.  New Business

7.a.  Receive and Open Landscaping Bids and Proposals – It is anticipated that the Board will be opening bids from Brightview, Reno Green and Reliance Grounds Management.

7.b.  Review and Approval of 2020 Audit – For a reading of the SOA’s 2020 financial audit report (all 40 pages of it) by Hilburn and Lein CPA’s, the reader is referred to the Board Meeting Packet available on the SOA website. The report contained the following Opinion: “In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material aspects, the financial position of Somersett Owners Association as of December31, 2020, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.”

7.c.  Review and approval of Common Area Easement – This item apparently involves the SOA granting a permeant Easement of SOA common area property to the owners at 1772 Fairway Hills Trail. That is, a parcel of SOA land adjacent to the rear of their property. This “for the purpose of fencing in the Easement and installing landscaping, a patio, and other improvements in the Easement Area for the sole use of the Dominant Tenement”. Sounds like the owners at 1772 Fairway Hills Trail want to add 1,062 sq. ft. To their back yard. If this is the case why not sell it to them? A description (picture) of the property in question and a copy of the Grant Deed is available in the Board Meeting Packet on the SOA website.

7.d.  Approval of Common Area Turnover from Ryder Homes – Ryder Homes has apparently sufficiently completed their SBE development to warrant turnover of common areas to the SOA. Hopefully the SOA will do the proper inspections and review all documentation prior to acceptance. A description of the areas to be turned over are contained in the Board Meeting Packet available on the SOA website.

7.e.  Review and Approval of SOA Management Staffing and Transition Plan – An item of significant interest to all Somersett owners. The submitted Transition Plan identifies responsibilities, actions and schedules associated with the following focus areas: Project Management, Financial Systems, Information and Security Systems, Organization and Staffing and Community Engagement. Also, included are proposed salary schedules and a recommendation to hire Unique HR as the SOA’s HR and Payroll Services provider. This is the first mention of Unique HR as a SOA vendor and no cost data was included within the Board Meeting Packet. SU does not believe that any competitive proposals were obtained. See the following link for a copy of the SOA Transition and Salary Plan:

SOA Transition and Salary Plan

7.f.  Review and Approval of Consulting Agreement with Lorrie Olson – At the previous Board meeting a recommendation was made by the SOA Management Consultant, Nancy Kerry, to employ Ms. Olson to assist in the transition process, as there is much to be done in a short period of time. Ms. Olsen has extensive HOA management experience and has served as the Community Manager for the Caughlin Ranch HOA. Following is a copy of the proposed Agreement, compensation is capped at $1500/week and would be based on Board approved work completion.

Agreement for Consulting Services

7.g.  Proposal to Install Divider Netting between Courts – To prevent balls from intruding on adjacent courts, installation of a screened divider between the SOA’s two tennis courts has been recommenced by the Facilities Committee, with a budget not to exceed $3,000.

September 8th SOA Special Board Meeting Summary

recap 1

Following is a summary of items discussed at the September 8th Special Board Meeting (see: “September 8th SOA Special Board Meeting Agenda”).

Note: Given the early termination (October 31st, 2021) of FirstService Residential’s (FSR) management contract with the SOA, there is an urgency in completing the transition process to SOA self-management. Hence the Board will be holding these Special Meetings in addition to the regular monthly business meetings.

Item 3.a.  Update and Discussion Regarding Transition

The SOA Management Consultant Nancy Kerry provided a verbal update on the SOA management transition process, which addressed the following areas: Project Administration, Accounting, Organizational Structure (staffing) and Homeowner Engagement. Salient points made were as follows:

  • A tentative timeline for the transition has been developed (not yet published, SU will provide when available). A transition team consisting of Ms. Kerry, Board members, a Taylor Association Management Company (Taylor) representative and perhaps some unnamed homeowners, will be meeting every Tuesday to address the transition timeline and corresponding action items. Owners who feel they have some expertise in this area and would like to volunteer their services are encouraged to contact Ms. Kerry or a Board member.
  • Taylor is taking the lead on migrating the SOA’s accounting data from FSR over to the system used by Taylor. They have done this before with FSR and expect to have completed the migration by early October, with the actual switchover occurring on October 31st.
  • Organizational items underway include generation of a proposed SOA Organizational Chart, an employee budget and staffing considerations. With regard to staffing, those permanent FSR employees who may wish to stay on within the new organization have been assured a position, either in a similar or new capacity. Interviews with FSR employees have been completed with most wanting to stay on (this does not include the SOA Community Manager, Ryan Fields, who will remain with FSR). Offer letters are being prepared, but there is an issue with regard to the provision of employee benefits. Give the October 31st deadline, it may be difficult for the SOA to secure all that is required if they transfer in as direct SOA employees. An option here would be for them to become Taylor Management employees (who already have benefit plans in place) on an interim basis. Another option discussed involved the SOA hiring them directly while picking up their employee costs for extending their medical benefits via the Federal “Cobra” plan, which would only be through November and December of this year.
  • Ms. Kerry recommended to the Board that they bring onboard a Ms. Laurie Olsen to assist in the transition process, as there is much to be done in a short period of time. Ms. Olsen has extensive HOA management experience and has served as the Community Manager for the Caughlin Ranch HOA. No Board action was requested at this time regarding Ms. Olsen, as a formal proposal for such will be submitted at the next Board meeting.
  • Regarding Homeowner engagement, there will be series of communications on the transition process advising Homeowners what to expect and when. On the subject of assessment payments, the October payments will be made as usual through FSR, but the November payments will be via a different avenue.
  • A comment was made that all the FSR office equipment, including IT items, are owned by the SOA. Therefore, no budget allotment required in this regard. FSR proprietary or confidential programs or data would be removed from the IT equipment prior to turnover.
  • In response to Ms. Kerry’s update, Board member O’Donnell expressed a concern over Ms. Kerry and Ms. Olsen being able to handle the workload they would be facing, and that the Tuesday Transition Team meeting also address not only Ms. Olsen’s employment, but others (e.g., Administrative Assistant and Club Manager) as well. This in light that the SOA is also facing Board elections and Budget ratifications in the same time frame.

Item 3.b.  Ratification of Agreement with Taylor and Associates

The Board approved an Amendment to the Taylor Association Management agreement which simply added a couple paragraphs emphasizing the SOA intention, with Taylor help, to move toward self-management.

Item 3.c.  Agreement with Village Management Software (VMS)

Apparently the Board has made the decision to utilize the Village Management Software suite of products for managing the Association, which is the same software package used by Taylor Associates. However, the VMS agreement was not completed at the time of the meeting, so action was deferred.

Item 3.d.  Payroll Processing Discussion and Possible Agreement

Board member O’Donnell commented on the implementation of a SOA employee Payroll Processing System (wages, taxes, Workman’s Compensation, health care and other benefits), and what employee data would be required. Data that would most likely require a FSR release to obtain from those FSR employees transferring over. Apparently Board member O’Donnell has past experience (as a computer/software company owner) in this area and does not consider this a complex issue to address. In this regard, Mr. O’Donnell was tasked to head the effort for seeking out potential Payroll Processing Companies for the SOA. The overriding issue being timing.

Item 3.e.  Review and Approval of Lap Pool and Spa Resurfacing Proposal

This was a holdover item from the previous Board meeting due to the uncertainty as to whether resurfacing of the lap pool was really required by the Washoe County Health Department for the 2022 season. It was determined that this was not the case for the lap pool, only the two Spas. Therefore, it was decided to reissue a request for proposal to resurface the two Spas only.

Item 4.  Homeowner Comments

A Homeowner requested clarification on the following from Ms. Kerry’s presentation

  • Will all full time FSR employees who want to transfer over be offered a job? The answer was yes.
  • How was Village Management Software (VMS) selected and did we look at other companies? The answer was that VMS is the accounting software employed by Taylor and we will migrate it over to the SOA during the transition process, in addition to any other VMS required software modules. However, a separate agreement with VMS will be required, which is expected to be ready for the next Board Meeting. SU assumes other alternatives were not considered.
  • Will Ms. Olsen be employed as a consultant or SOA employee? The answer was that in the absence of a near term payroll processing system, Ms. Olsen would initially be hired as a consultant. However, given that her employment is expected to last for several months, perhaps as a SOA employee sometime in the future.
  • Will the SOA be issuing any formal request for volunteers to aid Ms. Kerry and others in the transition process? The answer being that no formal requests will be forthcoming, but would not turn down assistance from those with relevant experience who may wish to help out. Also, a comment from the Board that the FSR Community Manager, Ryan Fields, has and continues to be, a very helpful participant in addressing transition issues.

An owner expressed concern over the practice of mailing election ballots via the US Postal Service, and whether or not this resulted in a problem with timely delivery to those non-resident owners. Also, an opinion that emailed ballots would be more efficient and is a permitted process under Nevada Law. In response, the Board advised (via SOA Attorney opinion) that email balloting for Board elections was not permitted under Nevada Law.

SU Note: Following is the Nevada Statue that SU believes to be applicable regarding Board elections. Note that it does not define “mail” as being via USPS. Could it be interpreted that “mail” also includes electronic mail? Perhaps a deeper look is in order. However, another issue here is that whereas all physical addresses for owners are available, email addresses are probably not.

NRS116.31034.8.  If, at the closing of the prescribed period for nominations for membership on the executive board described in subsection 5, the number of candidates nominated for membership on the executive board is greater than the number of members to be elected to the executive board, then the association shall:
(a) Prepare and mail ballots to the units’ owners pursuant to this section; and
(b) Conduct an election for membership on the executive board pursuant to this section.

A Sierra Canyon owner commented on the Transfer Fees the Association collects on the resale of a home within Somersett. Wanting to know where the money goes and offering an opinion that the transfer fees being based on the value of the home, that with escalating home values, they appear to be excessive and can the Board do something about it? The ensuing discussion by Board members revealed the following:

  • For resales, the transfer fees are 0.1% of the selling price. (example, for the median home price of around $700K, the transfer fee would be $700.
  • The transfer fee monies go into two buckets, one to the Management Company (as a revenue generator) in accordance with their contract (not sure on the FSR contract, but a $400 amount was mentioned) and the other into the Common Area operating budget. A reading of the Taylor Agreement states a transfer collection fee of  $325.
  • Board member O’Donnell expressed the opinion that transfer fees should be cost neutral. That is, only assess what the actual cost is for updating the SOA owner databases with the new owner information, which he felt would only be a nominal amount. Board Member Capalongan made reference to the governing documents, which under Article III, Section 15 of the CC&R’s state:

Section 15. Transfer Fees.  Initially after a Unit which has reached its Assessment Threshold, when a transfer of ownership occurs, a transfer fee shall be charged to said initial transferee by the Association. The initial transfer fee for each Unit is presently FOUR HUNDRED AND NO/IO0THS DOLLARS ($400.00) and is subject to adjustment by the Board, After the initial transfer, all subsequent transfers of a Unit (e.g., resales) shall cause a transfer fee in an amount equal to one-tenth of one percent (.1%) of the sales price for such Unit, based on the gross sales price for such re-sale as disclosed in the Declaration of Value filed with the Washoe County Recorder in connection with such sale, to be charged to the transferee by the Association. The Board may set different transfer fees of uniform application to all Units, Those transfers exempted from transfer tax under Nevada Revised Statutes 375.090 shall also be exempt from all Association transfer fees; and bulk transfers of five (5) or more lots at one time to a single entity shall also be exempt from all transfer fees, The imposition of such transfer fees is intended for the purpose of providing a continual source of capital to the Association for the purpose of enhancing the Association’s financial capabilities in meeting its obligations in maintaining and improving Common Areas in a manner in keeping with the first-class nature of the Subdivision over time.

Given that Homeowner assessments will no longer be collected by FSR after October 31st, a owner questioned how assessments that had been paid in advance would be handled. Response was that this was not an issue, as FSR would apply the appropriate credits into the new (Taylor) accounting system.

Board Member Ad-hoc Comments

Board member O’Donnell wanted to, on behalf of the Board, thank all our volunteer Committee members for their hard work and that the Board would  be relying on them heavily during the transition process.  Also, reiterated that those owners who wanted to assist in the transition process and/or serve on the Transition Committee (i.e., subject to the requisite qualifications) submit their applications. This suggestion did not appear to get overwhelming support from the Board President. Perhaps a “Too many cooks spoil the broth” concern.

Note:  The above summaries paraphrase what SU derived from the Meeting. For complete and actual dialogs, the reader is referred to the following videoconference link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kiNyNiiu4P1vHM3syRVLrmoIAQbeWp8r/view