November 3rd BOD Meeting Recap

Somersett United
Somersett United

The SOA Board of Directors (BOD) held their bi-monthly meeting at The Club at Town Center (TCTC) on November 3, the agenda for which may be accessed by clicking on the following: November 3 BOD Meeting Agenda.

 A recap on some of the more significant agenda items follow:

6 a) Litigation Items – The BOD identified the following as unresolved litigation issues before the BOD:

  1. The Complaint action against the previous Developer controlled BOD citing violations of law associated with the current SGCC Lease Agreement, after much delay, has been officially filed by the Nevada Attorney General’s office. The Complaint may be accessed by clicking on the following:  Case No. IN-12-1581.  However, the complaint will not be prosecuted before the Nevada Real Estate Commission during the November Hearings as stated in the Complaint; rather it has been withdrawn for continuance to the March Hearings.
  2. A lawsuit has been filed against the BOD alleging the CC&R Amendment voting process was unlawfully conducted. Early stages, nothing to report on.
  3. CC&R issues associated with Northgate owners, who expanded their property by purchasing adjacent land formerly part of the Northgate golf course, is still open. This is a carryover from the previous Developer BOD with no resolution to report on.
  4. The Association has been named party to a homeowner lawsuit in a Chapter 40 construction defect against the builder.

6 c) Town Square Lot Purchase – The BOD voted to purchase the lot adjacent to the Town Square retail buildings for $250K. Funds are available within the Association to cover the purchase.  No current plans on use of the property, which is being bought for future amenity expansion. Some discussion as to what budget the funds would be coming from and whether not it would be Common Area (accessible by Sierra Canyon residents) or TCTC area (non-accessible by Sierra Canyon).

7 d) 2015 Budget and Special Projects – The BOD voted to approve the Association’s 2015 Budget, which is being mailed to all homeowners for ratification.

7 e) CC&R Amendment  –  In response to the complaint action brought against the BOD  with regard to the CC&R Amendment vote, the BOD voted to accept the results of the vote and move forward with its implementation.

7 f) SGCC Due Diligence Work  –  The BOD voted to expend funds (third party contracts) to support the following due diligence activities: 1) boundary line surveys, 2) non-evasive environmental reviews, and 3) water rights permit reviews.  These are not expected to be significant cost items.

7 l) Canyon9 Maintenance Contract – The only bid received for this contract was from the Somersett Country Club, who has maintained the course since its inception. Bid was for $300K, which was considered compatible with past bids and therefore accepted.  A difference from past contracts is that it was for one year only instead of three and not tied to the number of homeowner units.

3 thoughts on “November 3rd BOD Meeting Recap

  1. The lawsuit filed against the HOA is seeking an injunction preventing the Association from recording the amendments to the CC&Rs in addition to asking for damages and legal fees. The suit was filed by John Kerwin, Joseph Bower, Geoffrey Brooks, Harold & Susan Chotiner, Herbert & Linda James, Stephen & Patrica Kanyr and Ronald & Jutta Tracy.

    1. Mike,

      What you need to acknowledge is that this lawsuit was filed on behalf of many others who believe in the rule of law. The basis for the lawsuit is that the BOD violated NRS statutes in conducting the CC&R vote either intentionally or through ignorance, both of which are unacceptable. Primarily by violating NRS 116.31035 and NRS 116.311 dealing with equal space, opposing viewpoints and notification requirements. Seeking an injunction to stay implementation of the CC&R Amendments while this is resolved seems like an acceptable route to me. The named individuals are committing their own monies to right what they believe to be a wrong. Perhaps you could do the same!

      1. I certainly do acknowledge that the suit was filed by a small group who were not happy with the outcome of the vote. Clearly, if they had been successful, there would be no lawsuit. Some 570 votes were cast against, while 1,270 votes were cast for the amendment.

        Hopefully, you are correct that these people committed their own money and that the homeowner’s dues of the 1,270 will not be used to pay the legal fees or penalties which this group is asking for.

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