SOA Update on Discussions with the SGCC

For SU readers who may not have seen it, the following letter from Board President Tony Fakonas has been reprinted from the SOA website.

From the SOA President:

On May 28, Board members Danielle Kirby, Ray Lee, and I held an information session open to all SOA members to discuss the current status of the SOA’s discussions with the SGCC to replace the existing amenity access agreement.  At that time, we told you that no agreement has been reached.  However, we were starting to see elements that we believed would likely be in any final agreement, and we wanted to share those ideas and gather feedback from SOA members.  Overall, the feedback we have received from that meeting was quite positive.  Since then, several events have occurred that we thought warranted an update.  (Read More)

Regarding the content of Mr. Fakonas’s memo, the following comments are offered:

  1. SU has taken the position that the current Lease Agreement should be terminated until a new agreement is negotiated and voted on. In this regard, SU takes exception to Mr. Fakonas’s statement that “to invalidate the agreement would most likely lead to expensive and protracted litigation”. The SU exception is based on Nevada Law NRS 116.3105.1, which states, “Within 2 years after the executive board elected by the units owners pursuant to NRS 116.3104 takes office, the association may terminate without penalty, upon not less than 90 days notice to the other party, any of the following if it was entered into before that executive board was elected: (a) Any management, maintenance, operations or employment contract, or lease of recreational or parking areas or facilities”. Terminating the agreement until vote could save the association $36K/month in assessments going to the SGCC, which in the event of a no vote represent monies lost with a low probability of recovery.
  2. SU also takes exception to the negotiating committee being comprised of only BOD members Mr. Fakonas and Ms. Kirby.  To eliminate any concerns about their objectivity, SU contends that the negotiating committee should also include non-BOD member homeowners with diverse qualifications. A good example is the direct homeowner involvement with the “Lodge Expansion” project in Sierra Canyon.
  3. Mr. Fakonas should have summarized the proposed elements of the new agreement in his update, as it is believed that he is well down the road in this regard. SU suspects that the new agreement will mirror that presented at the May 28 Information Presentation Meeting.  That is, a long term 8.5 year agreement in exchange for approximately 5.5 acres of CC land wherein the existing parking lot, temporary buildings, pipeline easement and Bocce Ball courts are located.
  4. Mr. Fakonas also states “Overall, the feedback we have received from that meeting was quite positive”. This is not evident from the video transcript of the Meeting.  However one can draw their own conclusions by viewing it online at:
  5. The BOD continues to address the agreement in the terms of improving benefits to the SOA, which on a standalone basis does not appear to be worth the investment.  Whereas, the issue of the Country Club’s financial instability as an attendant circumstance has not been openly disclosed in association documents, as it should be.