No Choice – Vote NO on Proposed CC&R Amendments

Somersett United
Somersett United

After analyzing the SOA Board of Directors (BOD) proposed CC&R Amendments and what was presented at the Aspen Lodge meeting, a NO vote is the only choice.  This based on the following;

The proposed change grants the BOD the authority to purchase, lease or annex real property up to $500K, for each individual purchase, on an annual basis, without unit owner vote, and with the ability to increase annual assessments up to 15% or levy a special assessment up to 25% of the annual assessment.

The proposed change grants the BOD the authority to purchase, lease, or annex real property over $500K (no limit) with unit owner approval.  However, unit owner approval is defined as a “Majority Percentage Vote” of a “Quorum”.   The term “Quorum” is not defined or otherwise described in the proposed amendments, but is covered under  existing  Article 2, Section 9 of the CC&R’s which states a Quorum  “shall be as specified in NRS 116.3109 and 116.311”.  This statute establishes a Quorum as 20% of all unit owners, unless otherwise provided for in the CC&R’s, which it is not. Therefore the BOD can obtain approval to purchase, lease, or annex real property, without limit by obtaining as little as a 10% affirmative vote of unit owners.  For example, if one assumes 2400 unit owners (we are currently slightly more than that), and 480 votes are cast (meets the quorum requirement) then an affirmative vote by only 241 unit owners would approve the BOD to purchase, lease or annex millions of dollars of real property at the expense of the other 2149 unit owners.  (Note: NRS stands for Nevada Revised Statutes and Chapter 116 is the law governing Homeowner associations),

Clearly one can see the folly of the preceding.   An Association’s BOD should not be granted the purchasing, lease or annexation powers proposed by the amendments.

Do not be fooled by the spin put on the “benefits” of the proposed amendments by the BOD.  For whatever motives, they have complicated what could have been beneficial amendments to the CC&R’s with something untenable,  as well as botching up the voting process. Why one may ask, did they not have homeowner meetings prior to finalizing the amendments and sending out the ballots (as was done with the BOD candidate nights)?  Why did they send out the CC&R ballots in the same packet as the BOD election ballots with only one “secret ballot’ return envelope when the dead line for the return of the two ballots are vastly different?  One could conclude they wanted homeowners to submit the ballots early before fully realizing its implications.

Bottom Line  –  a NO vote on the proposed CC&R amendments is a must. Then perhaps the new BOD can accomplish submitting reasonable CC&R amendments for homeowner vote.

5 thoughts on “No Choice – Vote NO on Proposed CC&R Amendments

  1. If you should view the video presentation of the SOA Board at the Lodge on 11/6/13, please be sure to see it through to the ensuing questions. The president’s presentation was misleading regarding the determination of a majority vote.

    After several homeowners speaking up to clarify that the CCR Changes will reduce the majority vote from 50% to 20% of total homeowners, the president understood the mistake BUT he is not about to change the Ballot on proposed CCR changes.

    I have also read the proposed changes in CCR distributed by mail and I am very disturbed by their implications.

    Para 1 of the proposed changes seeks to “clarify exactly how the outcome of a homeowner vote will be determined”.

    “Whether a homeowner vote is conducted at a meeting or by mail-in ballets, the outcome will be determined by the majority of votes cast, as long as the total of votes cast represents a quorum of homeowners. ”

    I looked up NRS 116.3109 where the definition of quorum is 20 % of eligible homeowners.

    Therefore, para 1 of the proposed CCR amendment seeks to reduce the majority vote to 10% of total homeowners. That is, if a meeting or ballot has 20% returns, all it needs is a 10% of the returns to carry any motion, including those involving land purchase, assessment increases etc.

    The good news is that this proposed CCR amendment still requires a majority 50% of ALL homeowners. That is, the proposed amendment will require the approval of 50% plus one of total homeowners (1264 out of 2478 homeowners) for them to be adopted ,

    Putting it another way, this is the only chance for homeowners to retain 50% majority rule on major issues including assessments. Let us counter the 20% quorum they are trying to garner with a resounding No vote on CCR amendments.

    You will also note (in the blue pages) of Somersett mailing that the changes are heavily tilted towards property lease purchase etc. While I can understand the specific examples with regards to TCTC, and I would support specific authorization for each identified project, I have serious reservations about giving the SOA a blanket $500K limit to purchase/ lease/exchange real (estate) property forever hereafter with inflation adjustments. We can understand why a developer-controlled board would deal heavily on real estate leases/purchase/annexation (after all, its his line of business), but it is highly questionable why a homeowners-controlled board want such wide latitude on real estate dealings forever hereafter.

    They are asking for a blank check for $500K with provisions for escalation, when a maximum limit of $250k will be sufficient for most purposes.

    We should also question why the current board members are so very focused on giving the Board a wide berth on real estate leases/purchase, rather than project specific approvals . Is there a special interest group behind the proposal?

    The implications of these changes are far-reaching. Please review the Somersett mailings carefully and vote according to what is right and fair.

    A NO vote for the proposed CCR Changes will safeguard your homeowner rights.

    I hope to count on you to widely discuss the ramifications of the proposed CCR changes and gather “No” votes on this Trojan Horse.


    1. The current CCRs define the purpose of the association.

      The Artickes describing the associations purpose, has a disclaimer (on page 12 of the CCRs) that says

      …no other purpose than those specified with the orderly functioning and mainatenance of our community…and

      “shall be expressly be PROHIBITED from representing the Owners and occupants of Units within the Subdivision on issues of land use, planning municipal annexation, mnaster plan amendments, growth area development or similar matters”

      It does not include wheeling and dealing on land purchases, leases, what ever the realtors on our board want to do. Not sure why we would allow them to clear a 6% commission on all of the annual free-wheeling real estate $500,000 deals they are planning on our behalf from our monthly home owner assessments.

      I carefully read the “reason for change document” and the comments made by Adrian and agree with his detailed observations. However mine are printed on Green paper!

      Green Grass of Home She VOTES NO on the changes

      How about you?

      1. I just received a postcard in the mail suggesting that I tell the BOD that I am mad. I will tell Sommersett United that I am mad for their scare tactics and spreading untruths.

        (1) There is NO WAY that the Board could make MULTIPLE $500K purchases in a year. Tell the truth that there are financial constraints to prevent that.

        (2) A change to a majority vote of 10% of the homeowners plus 1 is DECEPTION.
        IF only 10% of the homeowners voted, that would not constitute a QUORUM which requires at least 20% of all homeowners. State the facts. Currently if only 20% of all homeowners vote and half of the voters plus 1 vote for an issue, it would pass. THERE IS NO CHANGE – Another scare tactic

        Quite simply, it is scare tactics used by Sommersett United. Hopefully the majority of Sommersett residents are smart enough to see through the negativity and misleading statements.

        1. I received that post card saying vote no, letters explaining why I should vote yes.

          Unfortunately, the wording in the changes of the CCRs is opaque. Why should I vote for something that is unclear. Our past homeowner board through diversion of our monies to support a private golf course has reduced the level of “trusting” the board.

          Keeping the golf course green is a priority. However under the current opaque rules a minority can impose a solution which provides fiscal support for the golf course, based on the private club board members, the club residents and the developers/home builder voting block.

          We need balance, funds invested in building amenities in the sheltered (from the wind) west park, such as a baseball diamond & a soccer field for the youth. The current homeowner board is too closely tied to the developers and realtors.

          I am still voting NO on my green ballot!

        2. Mike

          A quorum is reached when 496 unit owners vote.
          If 249 voted yes and 247 voted no, the resolution, matter would pass. Hence 249 unit owners which represents about 10% of the community could decide for the other 2500 owners.

          As developers/builders still have around 300 votes, it is conceivable that they could have measures intrinsically favorable to them placed before the unit owners for a vote. They could dominate the quorum voting procedures. We know that their votes have been critical in ensuring that the continuing legal action against Moana was approved, and in electing two realtors to the last board.

          I am not sure that calling this possible voting outcome a “scare tactic” is correct.

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