Proposed CC&R Change Circumvents Need for Country Club Lease Agreement

Posted by Concerned Association Member

……overshadows most important issue of concern to all Somersett owners the reversion and water rights in perpetuity to the land on which the Golf Course resides.

The Somersett Board of Directors at a meeting with homeowners at the town center advised homeowners that the proposed CC&R changes did not have anything to do with a new agreement to lease amenities from the Somersett Golf and Country Club.

This comment is rather disingenuous when the proposed CC&Rs does give the right to the Board of Directors to lease property(s) in a given year in an amount up to $500,000 without homeowner approval, or to enter into a lease of unlimited value also without homeowner approval.  Therefore, the Board under the new CC&Rs could easily enter into an agreement to lease land or the Sunsett Grill from the Country Club putting Somersett in the restaurant business.

If the new CC&Rs are voted in the Board will have circumvented the need to have a vote on an agreement to lease amenities as required by the Attorney General’s office.

The Board stated further that the negotiations on the lease agreement have been difficult  and convoluted with many “twists and Turns”, that is why it is taking so long having started discussion with the Country Club as early of March of this year.  What is difficult to accept at face value is why the current Board has not adopted the negotiation tactic of setting a deadline and refusing any further monthly payments to the Country Club until such time as a lease agreement is agreed on.   This in light of a Nevada Statute permitting such action taken together with the AG’s office requiring a vote of homeowners on a new lease agreement

Rather than seek a change in the CC&Rs which is most difficult to obtain, Somersett Owners should ask of its Board that they come up with a plan which may include financial assistance to the Country Club, but must include acquisition of the reversion and water rights to the land on which the golf course resides so that the future of the property as open space to the benefit of all owners in perpetuity is preserved.

….treating Somersett Homeowners as if they recently fell off a Turnip Truck is an insult to their intelligence, while this approach has been used in the past it should not be used by our current homeowner board.  Come up with a plan that we as a community can all support, nobody wants to see the golf course go brown, we all want to see the open space preserved to the benefit of all owner for time immemorial.

12 thoughts on “Proposed CC&R Change Circumvents Need for Country Club Lease Agreement

  1. It’s unbelievable how much you 6 or 8 disgruntled ex country club member homeowners have in your minds and/or would try to convince other homeowners of these devious conspiracy theories.

    You imply in your “anonymous” post that the board is deceiving the homeowners by trying to change the CC&R’s so they can do an end around deal with the SGCC. Nothing can be further from the truth.

    You also imply that the board is dragging it’s feet on a new agreement so the SGCC can continue to receive payments under the amenities agreement that would otherwise stop if a new agreement was negotiated and approved by the homeowners. Again, nothing can be further from the truth. Both parties are anxious to see a mutually beneficial agreement concluded and approved by the homeowners as soon as possible.


    1. Barry: I have had it, 6-8 disgruntled ex country club members, really. Just where is your support for all of your illogical, misplaced, and nasty comments. Where are the 100’s that support you Barry, don’t see them. I have reviewed the comments over the past year and many people have concerns, have commented professionally and support/share the opinions that you seem to think are 6- 8 disgruntled people. Of course your opinions, no matter how nasty, are supported? Get real. Until your supporters, as you seem to think, many/many/many, start lining up, writing comments and posts and supporting some of your outrageous conclusions I for one am not reading your meanderings any longer as most people don’t, I suppose. No need to respond, I won’t read anything from you anyway, not anymore, not worth the time.

      1. I could care less whether you read them or not. And, I guarantee you there are hundreds that feel the exact same way I do, they just choose to let me do their bidding. This site is after all pretty much dedicated to the few who choose to air their misguided opinions about conspiracy theories from the BOD of the SOA, exaggerations and mistruths about the agreement between the SOA and SGCC and just plain inaccuracies in most posts to try to convince others that might wander onto this site to see what’s going on to think and act like them.

        BTW, Had It, if you’re so right and so self righteous, why won’t you even post on here with your real name? Too afraid people might know who is posting some of the dribble that goes on here?

  2. What is probably more insulting is tangential view from a vocal few that their neighbors and current board members are fundamentally devious and close to out right crooks. The board continues to work within the constraints of the rules and regulations of an homeowners association and the associated contracts that existed at the time of the transaction.

    The tactic proposed above of withholding payments from SGCC until they cave in on negotiations is a sure fire way increase legal fees substantially as it would be a breach of contract in the simplest of terms.

    Strong arm tactics may work much of the time from the perspective of a corporate executive with command and control structures and authority to fire people when they do not agree. This approach does not work so well when collaboration and cooperation are the models for getting things done. Of course, this also requires an environment of trust which some in this venue have some difficulty with.

    1. Yogiwan & Barry

      Putting all the pro and con rhetoric and conspiracy theories aside, lets just focus on the facts regarding the Country Club Lease Agreement and the proposed CC&R Amendments.

      1. The Attorney Generals office has issued a draft complaint wherein they address the illegality of the current lease agreement and in which they identify where Nevada Statutes were violated. An agreement to stay filing of the complaint was put in place to allow the respondents and the SOA to rectify the situation by putting it to a vote of the homeowners. Given this, why is it unreasonable to ask the BOD to either terminate or suspend payments until such a vote is taken?

      2. The proposed changes to the CC&R’s give the BOD the authority to enter into property leases, without a dollar limit, and without homeowner approval, Read it! At the November 12 homeowner meeting, the BOD said “trust us” that this provision would not be applied to the new lease agreement, that it would be subject to homeowner vote, albeit under a 20% quorum rule. which I and many others believe to be way too low for multi-million dollar measures.

      3. You talk about an environment of trust, very noble, but where did trust get us with the previous BOD on this issue. In the real world the term “trust me” seldom works out on an equitable basis. So don’t be too harsh on those who may not trust the BOD (past, present or future), to always spend our money judicially, given the authority to do so.

      Bottom line, my agenda has always been that a multi-million dollar Country Club lease agreement should require homeowner approval in a reasonable fashion. nothing more, nothing less (although I am continually accused of having other nefarious motives) . Therefore, I am opposed to any CC&R amendment that could circumvent this requirement. Also, would it not have been better for the BOD to hold information meetings on the CC&R Amendments before sending out the Ballots? What was the rush? Perhaps you can enlighten me where my opinions are flawed.

      1. As with ANY contract, if a portion or part of it is deemed to be illegal in any way, there is always a stipulation that the rest of the contract will remain in effect, so your assertion that payments should be suspended until a vote on a new contract takes place is flawed and only associated with your negative attitude against the SGCC.

  3. I am in full agreement with the posted Blog intitled: “Proposed CC&R Change Circumvents Need for Country Club Lease Agreement”. The two “replies to this posting” are not well informed. If the current board wanted to maintain the current “quorum of 20%” as stipulated in NRS.116.3109, they should have written the changes to reflect that. However they chose to change that quorum to a “majority of ANY votes received”. That way any special interest group could get their agenda passed with much fewer votes than a majority of a quorum. PLEASE read the proposed changes and compare them against the NRS statute and current CC&Rs. Why would you want to negate the value of homeowners votes with blind trust of the intentions of 5 BOD members. Would you put your money and investments into such an arrangement?

    1. Since the BOD wants to maintain the current definition of a quorum as stipulated in the law, there was no reason to “write a change”. The majority vote (50% plus 1) is only valid IF A QUORUM IS MET, (i.e. at least 20% of the homeowners would have voted.)

      The BOD has stated repeatedly that if and when an agreement is reached with the golf course that it will be presented to the homeowners for a vote. I guess if one thinks the 5 members of the board are all out to deceive the homeowners, then one’s paranoia is a concern.

  4. I have to say from past experience in HOAs the more votes required the better off the Association is. I lived in a condo complex where there were numerous rentals. The President of the Board had proxies for those rentals and pretty much did what she wanted to. She even was able to put on the board those she wanted by using those proxies. I’ve been very cautious since then about giving anyone that much controls.

    1. Apples and Oranges.

      Somersett is not a condo complex and the number of rentals verses owner occupied homes is minute. The law defines a quorum as 20% of the homeowners. Once a quorum is reached. The vote is decided on the majority which is defined as 50% of those votes plus 1. Obviously, as important as everyone believes the Country Club vote would be, I believe that significantly more than 20% of the homeowners will vote.

  5. I believe that as a part of “deal” with the AG’s office, that the CCR’s pertaining to the relationship between the SOA and the SGCC need to be changed. At the moment they preclude any “interest” by the SOA in the SGCC and CGC.

    Hence, I believe that as this CCR needs to be changed concurrently with the voting on the “new agreement”, the rules of 51% (or maybe 50% + 1) should be in effect. That is at least 1240 yes votes.

    Under the quorum rules, the SGCC and the Developers have about 600 votes. As we have a combination of two realtors and 3 SGCC members, I feel that the voting may be stacked against the best interests for all in the community, especially as many believe that contributing to a private club should be an option and not mandatory.

    Tony Fakonas has told us that we will all like the new agreement. I can assure you that if I do, and it makes business sense (unlike the old one), I shall be among the first to support it and vote for it. I still believe that the vote (as the CCR’s must be changed) should be under the 1240 yes vote rule.

    When we bought our retirement home here in 2006, I was assured by Ryder Homes that golfing was purely optional. You had to personally pay to play. If either joining or contributing to the Country Club had been mandatory at that time, we would have continuing looking and bought elsewhere.

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