SPC Report on TCTC Amenities and SGCC Land Usage

somersett UnitedThe Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) has been diligently performing its charter to develop and maintain a strategic long range plan for the Somersett community.  In this regard they focused on the following two tasks:

  • Task 1.  The Club at Town Center (TCTC) amenity improvements for 2016 and beyond.
  • Task 2.  Options for the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC) land usage.

As a result of their extensive work on the above tasks, a special meeting was convened and a report issued detailing their activities, discussions and recommendations.  The full report may be accessed by clicking on the following link, which all are encouraged to read:

SPC Special Meeting Report

Task 1 TCTC Amenity Recommendation Summary

Recommendations contained in the report pertaining to TCTC amenity improvements include:

  1. Expanding the TCTC on the north side to add sufficient square footage to accommodate youth services programs, exercise facilities and meeting rooms.  Also recommendations on reconfiguring the TCTC facility to accommodate increased usage.
  2. Double the size of the lap pool, provide enclosed access from TCTC, and provide a convertible pool enclosure to allow for year around use. 
  3. Revise member areas around the outdoor pool to accommodate additional seating/lounging.

It is interesting to note that the SPC concluded that to construct a facility to accommodate an indoor pool and fitness center on the land adjacent to the Town Center retail buildings was not feasible for a variety of reasons.  This being somewhat contrary as to why the SOA BOD opted to purchase this land (i.e., for $260K) in the first place. That is, for future TCTC amenity additions. This now raises the question as to what this land (currently an eye sore) will ultimately be used for.

Task 2 SGCC Usage Recommendation Summary

Whereas the Task 1 recommendations will most likely provide for little controversy, SU expects that the Task 2 recommendations will not follow suit. The following SGCC land usage options were considered:

  1. Continue to operate the golf course and related facilities as now and offer it free to Owners.
  2. Do nothing but water and cut the grass on the Golf Course
  3. Operate the course as a private golf club except that there would not be any “free” golf for SOA members.
  4. Operate the course as a semi-private golf course
  5. Operate the course as a public course.

In evaluating the above options, the SPC rejected Option 2 as the least acceptable and estimated the annual cost to the SOA to maintain as green space would be in the $500K- $750K range, and that water restrictions may not permit maintaining such a large green space. 

Option 1 was also rejected based on the basis that most Somersett owners do not play golf and that the required increase in owner assessments would never pass a vote.

Options 3, 4 and 5 were presented as alternatives by the SPC Chairman who is also a SGCC member. He presented financial estimates, wherein options 3 and 4 could be accomplished on a break even basis with no impact on SOA member dues.  Based on these scenarios, the SPC recommended consideration for operating the golf course as a semi-private club (Option 4) with the backup for a private club (Option 3).

However, SU considers that the Option 3 and 4 scenarios presented by a SGCC member are potentially self-serving.  Therefore, the BOD should not act on the SPC recommendation without an independent assessment of the scenario data and assumptions. Note that Option 3 does not appear to offer Somersett homeowners anything for their $15/month assessment and Option 4 assumes 100 rounds of golf per day by Somersett homeowners – is this a stretch?  Also, the $2.0M estimated operating budget is not consistent with the SGCC’s reported expenses of $2.92M in 2013 nand $2.73M in 2014 (2015 financials are not yet publically available).  Additionally the scenarios do not appear to address what it would cost the SOA to acquire the SGCC business license, equipment, and club house.  These were all not a part of the purchase agreement. 

Interestingly, the report contained no reference on the SGCC’s current financial status and/or the probability that the SOA would be faced with a SGCC default anytime in the near future.

Additionally, the preceding recommendations appear to be at odds with what the SOA BOD presented to homeowners when arguing for a positive vote on the CC&R amendments and purchase of the SGCC land and water rights.  That is, to be able to control what happens to the SGCC land should they fail, stressing maintenance as a green belt (with little impact on assessments) as opposed to buying a golf course with a commitment to operate as such (as being more costly to homeowners).

Whatever the BOD or SPC recommendations turn out to be, if the SGCC property reverts to the SOA, one can only hope that the BOD will live up to its commitment to let the homeowners make the final decision. Presumably through a majority voting process.

10 thoughts on “SPC Report on TCTC Amenities and SGCC Land Usage

  1. As often said and as a reminder, Sierra Canyon dues money paid to Somersett should not be used for any amenity located therein that Sierra Canyon owners cannot use.

  2. In their report, the SPC concluded that TCTC facility expansion on the Town Center lot purchased by the BOD a year ago is not feasible. One of the reasons being its disassociation from the existing TCTC facility. Given this, perhaps the BOD should now consider the following:

    1. Selling off the lot, originally purchased by the SOA in November 2014 for $260K, hopefully for a profit.

    2. Working an exchange agreement with the owner of the vacant lot adjacent to TCTC. This was bought back in June 2014 by Sommercon LLC for $150K, purportedly for the purpose of building condominiums. Whereas the lot adjacent to TCTC is slightly larger than the lot purchased by the SOA, it is most likely better suited for condominium construction.

    Also, it is good to see that the SPC and BOD are considering options as what to do with the SGCC land should it revert to the SOA. Given the time required for due diligence activities and homewowner approvals, having an approved plan decided on prior to such event would be prudent.

  3. In rejecting maintaining the golf course land as green space, why does it all have to be green space? Why not a combination of green space and natural desert vegetation? After all we do live in a desert environment. What about selling off some of the land to Developers? Regarding water usage, did we not buy all the water rights, plus some, needed to irrigate the golf course land? Perhaps we could sell off some of that as well. All sounds better to me than trying to operate a golf course after it has gone belly-up. What makes the BOD believe that the SOA could succeed where professionals have failed? Homeowners who do not play golf should not be required to subsidize those that do!

    1. Hi Desert Rat

      Given the available water rights that we own – a proper development of the CGC would be at a minimum $300+million development program – to provide more housing to support Reno’s growth!

      At same time our beautiful open ambience could be maintained, amplified by setting aside about 100 acres for trails, desert landscaping, community gardens. More trees could be planted to provide enhanced carbon dioxide capture over the current grasslands….

      I am sure a Developer would be happy to provide some additional amenities. The Developer may well install solar power on the new housing to enhance the 8th sunniest cities race to a “green future”. By selling off the property we would retire all the SOA debt, bring the reserves to “fully funded” ($1 million missing, and a rescind the $2 monthly increase). Provide 24/7 security which we were promised (and had) when we bought in Somersett before the Great Recession.

      I noted concern about property values, but the property value studies carried out in Arrowcreek by UNR did not show any enhanced value for golf course ambience…I suggest that all visit Arrowcreek411.

  4. 1) In the TCTC update portion there was absolutely NO Mention of trying to tighten security and require Member ID card screening in order to actually make sure only SOA members and authorized and paying guests are allowed to use the TCTC Facilities. Screaming, unruly, non-paying juveniles were never mentioned.

    2) Why did the SOA purchase the two lots for TCTC expansion if they are not going to be utilized and built on to expand member desired amenities? They did not address this fiasco at all.

    3) I agree with questioning the assumptions for the Golf Course usage and revenue stream .NO WAY there are 140 rounds of golf played per day on this difficult/not fun course! I rarely see more than 15 to 20 foursomes per day in the very best weather. That works out to less than half what they forecast. A more realistic estimate would be: 4 persons x 20 rounds or 80 rounds of golf total per day maximum, nowhere near 140 rounds. This particular assumption would cut their projected revenue in half and leave the SOA general membership to come up with at least $1,000,000 per year of the required operating revenue. In my opinion their math does not work at all for either of the recommended options.

    4) The SOA membership should absolutely DEMAND that the SGCC books be opened up to all SOA homeowners for examination and review prior to any Vote or SOA Board decision on what should be done with the Golf Course should SGCC fail.

    1. I am pleased that they are improving our community by building a club house (see RJG 1/20/16)…

      Like “Had Enouigh Yet?” I too am anxious to see actually how prosperous the SGCC is now, and that their membership growth, retention can actually sustain investing in a pure clubhouse play.

      I believe that SGCC’s membership would be best served by investing in building at least 4 storey building (City allows up to 5) – with apartments on the top two floors ( 4 units per floor at 2000 sq ft each, assuming a 9000 sq ft footprint) – to be rented out – owned outright by members – which would add to the sustainability of the SGCC business and ensure that dedicated golfers were in permenant residence.

      I would also suggest that they excavate a basement for cart storage, garage, etc.

  5. I can’t figure out why you folks decided to live in Somersett. It’s a community planned around golf courses. You are like someone who bought lake front property, and then decided you want to drain the lake because you don’t swim…

    1. I guess, Old Joe, that when you are up your neck in a swamp surrounded by alligators, you actually don’t have time to drain the swamp…

      What’s wrong with just having just having grass, trials and more trees (parkland)?

      The board told us only would be a $2 additional cost to our monthly association fee if the SGCC failed to maintain the CGC as open space. This was when we were being asked to invest $2.75 million to buy 200 acres of “green” in Somersett – so it could always stay green.

      What has changed?

      Yes I love the green grass, but maybe I should love trees & parkland more.

  6. When the SOA Board made presentation on the golf course acquisition they steered away from any discussion of running a golf course. As I recall Tony emphasized the high cost of running a course vs, a green belt. So why is the BOD doing a seemingly 180 degree turn on this? Requiring all Somersett property owners to pay for a golf course will lower property values. The BOD needs to do a lot more work on the alternatives.

  7. I believe your recollection on SOA Board presentations regarding acquisition of the golf course land is indeed correct. However, the Board does not appear to have made any decision regarding continued operation of the golf course should it fail. To do such was only the recommendation of the Strategic Planning Committee. I agree that before this decision is made, a lot more due diligence is in order.

    Jim Haar

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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