January 8 BOD Meeting Report

Somersett Our Home
Somersett Our Home

Reference:  Board of Directors Meeting Agenda

Election of BOD Officers:

Tony Fakonas – President

Ray Lee – Treasure

Curtis Chan – Secretary

David Hughes and Danielle Kirby – Vice Presidents.

Conflict of Interest:

BOD Responded to concerns regarding those Directors who are also Somersett Country Club owners (Approximately 20% of the SOA Budget are related to Country Club contracts/agreements).  Potential conflict of interests will be handled on a case by case basis.  That is, Directors have individual responsibility to disclose if a conflict of interest exists on any matter before them and to recuse themselves from voting as may be required under Nevada statutes.

Homeowner Committees:

  • Finance and Budget – New Committee, charter approved, homeowner membership TBD.
  • Strategic Planning – New Committee, charter and homeowner membership TBD.
  • Existing Communication, Transition, Election Oversight, and Community Standards Committees to continue as is until new memberships are determined.

All committees will have BOD member participation. Anyone interested in serving on an SOA Committee should submit an email to mramsey@mysomersett.com.

Transition Committee Reports:

The Transition Committee submitted two documents the BOD: 1) a checklist and status of those items required by Nevada statutes upon transfer of association control from Developer to Homeowners, and 2) recommendations (non binding) for the new BOD to consider in moving forward.  These recommendations may be accessed via the following link.

SOA Transition Recommendations

Readers are encouraged to review these recommendations and provide comments on content (i.e., approval, disapproval and/or prioritization).

Sale of the 39 lots (Vue Subdivision) owned by the SOA:

The SOA acquired these lots after developer defaulted on monies owed to the SOA.  An offer of $390,000 was accepted by the BOD pending completion of due diligence on the part of the buyer. Per Ray Lee, this amount should make the SOA whole as regards lost revenue.

Homeowner Comments at Board Meeting:

  • Concern expressed over disposition of the $30,000 in surplus funds from gated community assessments, which was applied to the SOA General Fund.  BOD responded that although in the General Fund this surplus is accounted for separately and will only be used for gated community expenses.
  • Request for disposition on letter previously submitted regarding Somersett Development Company liability for the Rock Wall and Irrigation System litigation legal fees.  Complaint is that the SDC did not share equally in these fees.  BOD advised it will be reviewed and properly responded to.
  • Suggestion that the Aesthetic Guidelines Committee have a homeowner representative.  Committee is currently composed of non-homeowner professionals.  Disposition unknown.
  • Suggestion that non-golfing homeowners, who cannot take advantage of resident play via the SGCC Lease Agreement, be given transferable vouchers that can be given to family or friends.  BOD has appointed liaison members to the SCC (Tony Fakonas and Danielle Kirby), who will communicate with the SCC on this matter.
  • Request for disposition on letter previously submitted regarding the SGCC Lease Agreement Bocce Ball Court amenity.  Agreement called for provision of three courts by the SGCC for resident use, but only two were provided for.

One thought on “January 8 BOD Meeting Report

  1. As the source for the homeowner comment regarding the Bocce Ball Courts, it was based on requirements set forth in the SGCC Lease and Management Agreement that called for provision of three Bocce Ball Courts and Equipment for resident use, which were to be delivered by June 30 of 2012, however, only two were provided. Additionally another requirement of the Agreement was for provision of an unidentified amenity (i.e., at a cost of no more than $5K to the SGCC) also to be delivered by June 30, 2012. Non provision of these amenities constitute an apparent default under the terms of the Agreement.

    The Agreement does allow for the substitution of any amenity with another of like kind and/or value subject to mutual agreement. However, based on past inquiry, I have not been made aware of any amendment to the Agreement that would have mitigated the above.

    Given the overall content of the Agreement, the preceding may be considered a ”nit” by many, but in my world, Agreements are to be honored unless modified by mutual consent. Hence, my letter to the BOD requesting resolution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s