“Tell Me Why” …(Lennon/McCartney)…

Posted by Geoffrey Brooks – Somersett Homeowner

Do we have to keep on voting, surely it has all been said… The vote to change a few of the CC&R’s should be deemed “NOT PASSED”.  Why wait till the 15th?

Originally, we were told that the CC&R’s were rushed into the BOD vote, to save on postage. Subsequently, we have had two “very expensive” mailings.

The Board should appoint community home-owners to a committee to re-vamp (in English) all the CCR&R’s, to allow the HOA to respond to the future (e.g. severe droughts), to ensure that Somersett’s charter allows the community to own and operate golf courses, build additional amenities as the community deems necessary.

Please note that the above expansion of a now narrow charter only serves the developers now operating in this community (1500 houses to go).  We will be paying for future amenities that traditionally the developer provides included in the price of the property.

From past posts:

(Posted November 18th)

“Let’s Do It Right  – With regard to the CC&R vote:

1)    given the ballot instruction mix-up,

2)   at the Aspen Lodge the BOD President said a voter “quorum” constituted 50% of homeowners only to admit later it was really 20%, **

3)   at the TCTC meeting the BOD President said they just “missed” the fact that the Board authority to enter into property leases had no limits attached *

4)    other changes would be required in the future to address other CC&R provisions wherein “Developer” references would need deleting, and

5)   no pressing need was identified to push the CC&R vote at the same time as the BOD elections.

It appears that the BOD did not properly vet the proposed changes before putting it out for a vote. Therefore, is it not reasonable to suggest that the BOD cancel the CC&R vote while they get their act together and correct their mistakes, as unintentional as they may have been?

Otherwise they have left us no alternative but to vote no.”

* (Posted November 14th)

“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.”

When questioned on this oversight, the BOD admitted that they had blown it – there should have been a $ limit

** (Posted November 14th)

“At TCTC meeting the BOD President acknowledged that the 20% quorum requirement was indeed the correct value, which means that given the approximate 2480 unit owners, the minimum number of voting members for the measure to be valid would be 496 and to pass would require a minimum of 249 affirmative votes.  However, the BOD President expressed the opinion that for significantly high dollar measures, the probability that a high number of homeowners would abstain from voting was very low.

An attendee commented as to why the BOD did not explain and quantify the quorum issue in their letter to sent out with the ballots, or within the amendment language itself.  Rather than creating confusion and leaving it up to homeowners to figure out what a majority vote of a quorum meant.”

(Posted November 20th)

“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.”

(Posted February 2nd)

“The point I was trying to make, is that the developers, if they vote their 400 lots, can actually command the theoretical minimum number of yes votes to pass something, so they can actually control our community expenditures. As they have successfully sold golf course lots for a much greater premium than any re-seller has (so far), it is obvious where their interests lie.”

Collated by Geoffrey Brooks

SOA CC&R Ballot Solicitation Letter

Somersett UnitedThe SOA Board of Directors has issued yet another letter to those unit owners who have not submitted ballots on the proposed CC&R amendments.  For a copy of this letter click on the following link:

 Your Vote is Urgently Needed

Regarding this latest letter it is important to point out the following:

In their cover letter the BOD points to a “Key Impacts of Proposed Changes” comparison table to support an approval vote. In this table they continue to mislead (or show ignorance) on what the proposed changes will accomplish with regard to the purchase or annexation of real property into the association.

The letter states that in the current CC&R’s there is no limit specified on the BOD to purchase or annex property before a homeowner vote is required, and that the proposed change will establish limits in this regard. Their statement, “This proposed change defines stricter limits on the power of the BOD than the current CC&R’s require”, is totally misleading in that the current CC&R’s do not grant the BOD any authority in this regard. Hence, no authority to limit.  (Note: the BOD only has the authority granted to it by the association’s governing documents and no other!). This primise has been upheld in that the SOA attorney has gone on record saying that if the proposed CC&R amendments do not pass, any subsequent vote on a Country Club purchase agreement must also include a CC&R amendment.  That is, the current CC&R’s do not grant such authority (See previous post entitled “SOA Attorney Legal Opinions”).

In their letter the BOD emphasizes that the vote is currently running 2 to 1 for approval while continuing to promote the case for more approval votes.  SU considers this to be disingenuous for the following reasons:

  • Soliciting more votes so this issue may be closed is an acceptable action, but to disclose the existing vote count before the voting deadline is not, and their motives are to be questioned.
  •  In reporting on the current vote count, they do not reveal the demographics associated therewith (which they have access to).  For example, the early vote count may be heavily weighted by Country Club Member and Builder votes, who have a vested interest in approving the CC&R changes so that a Country Club Purchase and/or a Subsidy Agreement may be approved by a unit owner quorum of only 20%. as the proposed changes would allow.
  • The BOD provides no equal space for dissenting opinions on the stated merits of the proposed changes. Previous letters to the BOD requesting such equal space, or the reasons for not granting such, have gone unanswered, even though Nevada Statutes that SU believes grant such equal space have been quoted.

Rather than repeat previous editorial comments on the proposed CC&R changes, SU refers the reader to the previous article “CC&R Amendments -Setting the Record Straight”.

SU concurs that your vote is urgently needed, but a DISAPPROVAL, for the various reasons previously discussed on this website.

Early CC&R Ballot Opening

Posted by Joe Bower  –  Member SOA and Del Webb Owner

Concerned Owners,

The early opening of the CC&R ballots was morally wrong, if not illegal.

This “interim opening,” as the Board calls it (have you ever heard of such a thing) is unfair to both sides. We cannot allow our concerns to be simply brushed off or wait for a possibly backdated formal opinion to arrive.  Please send an email to the Board of Directors ℅ Lauren at Lstemmler@mysomersett.com protesting the opening and asking for an explanation as to why the action was necessary.

The Board referenced the ratio of approve to disapprove in its undated letter received today (March 12)  begging those owners who haven’t yet voted to do so. That unduly and inappropriately influences all owners.

Not only is the Board desperate to get the number of approve votes its needs to proceed with its plans, but once again the letter is one-sided. Opposition facts and points-of-view have not only been excluded, but not a single opposing person has been allowed to put anything into the letter. Maybe equal time and space only applies to presidential candidates and state of the union speeches, but it is the right thing to do.

Moana Nursery & Subsidy Reimbursement Agreements

Somersett United
Somersett United

As a point of information, the Moana Litigation Settlement referred to in Mr. Gescheider’s memo (see previous post) was published earlier on this website and can be accessed via Moana Settlement Agreement

The monies received by the SOA under this agreement amounted to $375,000, which according to the BOD, made the association whole with regard to the contested $367,000 previously paid to the Somersett Development Company (SDC) by the SOA under the 2011 Subsidy Reimbursement Agreement. This agreement was approved by the SDC controlled BOD back in 2011 to reimburse monies spent by the SDC to correct common area construction defects. Much has been said about the validity of the Subsidy Reimbursement Agreement in previous blog articles and was the subject of an investigation by the Nevada Real Estate Division’s Ombudsman’s office.  According to SOA counsel, with the recovery of monies under the Moana Settlement Agreement, the subsidy reimbursement matter before the Ombudsman has been closed.

Obviously, recovery of $375,000 is a substantial benefit to the Association regardless if it came from Moana Nursery or the SDC.  In past articles, SU hotly contested the validity of the Subsidy Reimbursement Agreement and applauds the homeowner who pursued it before the Ombudsman’s office.  To the extent this complaint was settled at the expense of Moana Nursery in lieu of the SDC may or may not have been appropriate as discussed in Mr. Gescheider’s memo. However, the bottom line is that this issue now appears to be closed, the SOA has benefited and SDC has “dodged the bullet”.

Moana Litigation Settlement – The Other Side!

The following memo received from Bruce Gescheider regarding the Moana Nursery litigation Settlement is posted for SU reader information:

The SOA Board of Directors refused to post our press release to the SOA membership about the lawsuit they initiated against Moana Nursery. Here is a link to the now settled litigation press release.  Obviously, we feel abused and used by the Development Company, its leadership and the SOA Board of Directors and just wanted to go on the record versus this “construction defect” vilification:


Bruce Gescheider
Moana Nursery