SGCC Lease Agreement Negotiations

The following summarizes our understanding on results of the July 2 meeting in Las Vegas between previous BOD members (Blake Smith, Tiffany Roland), the current  BOD President (Tony Fakonas), their respective attorneys and representatives of the Nevada Attorney General’s office.  Purpose was to discuss the alleged violations of law associated with the Country Club Lease Agreement and the filing of a “Complaint for Disciplinary Action and Notice of Hearing” before the Nevada Commission on Common Interest Communities and Condominiums.

  1. The AG’s office has stayed filing of the Complaint to allow the SOA BOD time to restructure the Lease Agreement with the Country Club and submit it to a vote of the homeowners.
  2. Vote on a restructured agreement will have to be accompanied by a corresponding amendment to the CC&R’s.
  3. The AG’s office has strongly encouraged that the Declarant (Blake Smith) reimburse the Association for all costs incurred with the voting process.
  4. If the homeowners ratify the restructured agreement and CC&R amendments with a majority vote, the AG’s office will in all probability drop the Complaint.
  5. If the homeowners vote not to ratify the agreement and CC&R amendments, the Complaint filing will go forward.
  6. If a deal on restructuring the Lease Agreement with the Country Club cannot be reached, and no vote is forthcoming, the Complaint filing will go forward.
  7. In the event of 5 or 6 above, the current BOD will be encouraged to void the current agreement as permitted under Nevada Law. This to preclude any liability on the part of the current BOD.

With regard to the restructured agreement, it appears that the current Country Club Committee (Tony Fakonas and Daniel Kirby) is proceeding with negotiations along the lines of that presented in the May 28 Homeowner “Information Presentation” Meeting. Significant elements include the following:

  1. A long term agreement of 8.5 years
  2. Substituting the original 2013 to be delivered amenity of a 18 Hole Putt-putt course with a 9 hole putting course and a sports court to accommodate pickle ball.
  3. Applicability to all unit owners with continued assessment amounts.
  4. The SGCC would be precluded from selling its assets to any third party during the agreement term except to the SOA.
  5. Voiding of the Land & Water Rights reverter clause in the current SGCC Deed and Bill of Sale. This is the clause that states all property, water rights, easements and equipment revert to the Developer if the property does not operate as an 18 hole championship golf course for 24 consecutive months.
  6. At the conclusion of the 8.5 year agreement, deeding over to the SGCC 5.5 acres of SGCC Land (i.e., that comprising the current area wherein the temporary buildings, bocce ball courts, parking lot and pipeline easements are located).

At the May 28 meeting there were many concerns raised by homeowners as to the viability of Items 4, 5 and 6.  Owning and/or having some control over operation of the SGCC comes with its attendant risks.  This as opposed to a simple “social membership” approach. 

Progress of the Fakonas/Kirby negotiations with the SGCC is unknown at this time. Hopefully, there will be more homeowner information meetings regarding content and soliciting homeowner input before going out for vote.

Readers are encouraged to let their opinions/preferences known to the BOD by submitting emails to and commenting via this website. For another perspective on this issue go to REReno.

2 thoughts on “SGCC Lease Agreement Negotiations

  1. I am very skeptical about the current BOD’s vision for a new Country Club agreement that provides for any future ownership or control of the Country Club properties. This would require a modification of the CC&R’s clause that states: “The Association shall have no other purpose than those specified herein, and shall expressly be prohibited from representing the Owners and occupants of Units within the Subdivision on issues of land use, planning, municipal annexation, master plan amendments, area development or similar matters”. I believe for the Association to enter into these types of activities comes with significant risks and potential liabilities to the Association, especially with the Country Club’s current financial instability.

    I suggest it would be better for the new agreement to be based on a “social membership” only, but with enhanced benefits over the current agreement. For example: 1) a minimum of four rounds of foursomes per year, 2) Driving range access with no range ball fees for a TBD number of “buckets”, 2) Free access to all non-golf course amenities (Bocce Ball, Pickle Ball, Putting Course, etc.), 3) Discounts on dining and golf shop purchases, and 4) Participation in Country Club sponsored social events at member rates.

    Agreement should be subject to renewal via homeowner vote on some predetermined basis (e.g., every five years). Agreement would also become void if the Country Club is sold to a third party, goes public, declares bankruptcy or ceases to operate for some other reason. In these events, the Association could then decide how to proceed in the best interests of the community. That is, I believe it premature to try to assess such events at this time.

    Then of course there is the question of what is an equitable assessment amount, $15/mo, $10/mo, or whatever. Also, whether or not unit owners can opt out if they do not wish to participate. However, this is probably not a viable option if an additional intent of the agreement is to help out the Country Club financially so as to preclude the events previously mentioned.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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