January 14th SOA BOD Meeting Recap

somersett UnitedFollowing is a summary of items discussed and acted upon at the January 14th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Director (BOD) meeting.  The full agenda may be accessed by clicking on the following link: Jan 14th Special BOD Meeting Agenda

Presidents Report (Item 3.b)

A Somersett and Sierra Canyon homeowner meeting is being scheduled for February 4 to address community security and safety issues.  This is being accomplished in conjunction with Ward 5 Councilwoman Naome Jardon.  Homeowners will be notified as to time and place, but it is expected that sessions will be held both at The Club @ Town Center (TCTC) and the Aspen Lodge.

Sierra Canyon Parkway Easement (Item 5.a)

A boundary line and water split agreement for maintenance of the Sierra Canyon Parkways was proposed by a committee representing both SOA and Sierra Canyon. Under the proposed agreement, the SOA will have responsibility for landscape and maintenance of property approximately 20 feet on each side of the Parkways and 80% of the irrigation costs.  Apparently there was no dispute regarding SOA responsibility for Parkway maintenance, only boundary definition, landscaping schemes and irrigation costs.  There was some discussion regarding the proposed boundaries, but ultimately, the agreement (to be implemented via an amendment to the current agreement) was approved. For those interested in reading the current agreement, this may be accomplished by clicking on the following link:  Del Webb Maintenance Easement Agreement

The agreement also addressed maintenance of the monuments at the front and back entrances to Sierra  Canyon. Sierra Canyon will have responsibility for both, until such time as Sierra Canyon build out is complete, at which time the SOA will take over responsibility for the  back entrance monument, ostensibly with a signage change to reflect the Somersett community as a whole.

Sierra Canyon Public Trail Maintenance (Item 5.a)

There has been a controversy over which association (Sierra Canyon or the SOA) was responsible for maintenance of the public trail system within Sierra Canyon.  Sierra Canyon has been including funds for this activity (at Sierra Canyon homeowner expense) in their reserves.  However, the Sierra Canyon Board has contended that this is an SOA responsibility.  The SOA’s attorney, after looking at all the SOA’s governing documents, sided with the Sierra Canyon position. The BOD accepted (with one abstention) this decision and will proceed accordingly. What remains is for a walk down of the trail system to establish which are actually public and fall under the decision.

Canyon 9 Maintenance Agreement (Item 5.b)

The BOD approved awarding the contract to the Somersett Golf & Country Club (SGCC) for the Canyon9 golf course maintenance. The SGCC’s proposal apparently was submitted with two parts, one for course maintenance ($286K) and one for water pumping system utility costs ($23K).  One BOD member questioned the later, contending that under the SGCC Land and Water Rights purchase agreement, the SGCC was responsible for at least some of the utility costs. This portion was approved contingent on an evaluation of the purchase agreement (within 60 days) and a determination as to whether or not some cost allocations, and the dollar amounts, would be appropriate.

Common Area Landscape Services Contract (Item 5.c)

The BOD approved (with one no vote) awarding the Common Area Services contract to Reno Green Landscaping, although theirs being the highest ($840K) of the three submitted bids (current vendor The Groundskeeper included). There was much discussion supporting this decision, including references, organizational structure, equipment, technology usage and a full time account manager.  The discussion included a summary of deficiencies encountered with the current vendor and a determination that the higher bid amount would be offset by the SOA’s incurred cost associated with these deficiencies. Also, that the Reno Green bid was within the SOA’s budget amount.

SGCC Boundary Line Adjustment (6.a)

Under the SGCC Land and Water Rights Purchase agreement, there was an area (approximately 5.5 acres) established for future construction of a SGCC clubhouse.  This area was excluded from the purchase agreement with the SGCC retaining its sole ownership.  The SGCC has requested an adjustment to this area’s boundary of about 0.19 acres on an equal exchange basis.  This to accommodate clubhouse construction concerns.  It was determined that this adjustment  had no impact on the SOA and was approved contingent on the SGCC agreeing to cover all costs associated with the requested adjustment.

3 thoughts on “January 14th SOA BOD Meeting Recap

  1. OMG what our neighbor, Joe Bower, has been talking about and pushing for several years, Parkway Easement and Trail Maintenance, are finally being settled favorably towards Sierra Canyon as he has indicated they should be. Glad the lawyers and board members agreed with him.

  2. Thanks to whoever you are. Great and long awaited progress has been made on these two issues. However, now the final step needs to be taken per the PUD.

    The Somersett PUD applies to and includes Sierra Canyon. It was recorded as document #3738238 on 03/12/2009 and on Page 2-23 it clearly states:

    “ALL COMMON AREAS, including pedestrian easements, streetscapes, major entries and intersections, open spaces, ‘commons,’ AND TRAILS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE SOMERSETT OWNERS ASSOCIATION (when enabling legislation is passed by the City of Reno allowing such districts).” – emphasis added

    Please disregard “enabling legislation.” I have checked with the City and have learned that is now an unnecessary and inapplicable clause that had been inserted when the PUD was being worked on prior to its approval and there is no need now for such legislation as the Somersett HOA is already in place.

    Needless to say, “ALL COMMON AREAS AND TRAILS” include those in Sierra Canyon which is part of the PUD.

    There never was a need for the Maintenance Easement Agreement between us and Somersett which a Somersett board member forced down our throats by insisting the main parkway needed to have the same look from beginning to end and the only way Somersett could ensure that was by the Agreement. Take a look at the main parkway now. The portion within Somersett looks like color TV and what is in Sierra Canyon looks like black and white TV. The goal of this Agreement has never been reached and now is the time to completely scrap it and follow the PUD.

    I think there may be a need for a minor agreement giving Sierra Canyon oversight of the Somersett landscaping crew while it is in Sierra Canyon. Only Sierra Canyon owners and board members can see on a daily basis what needs to be done. Also, the Somersett landscape contract needs to specify certain days of the week and a certain number of crew members that are devoted to Sierra Canyon.

    Let’s be practical and sensible while following the PUD at the same time.

  3. For years Sierra Canyon owners have been putting a portion of their monthly dues money into Reserve Line Item #72385 Asphalt/Slurry Sealing for Trails which now has over $108,000 in it.

    Should be returned to owners and not used for board pet projects.

    2016 dues should be lowered by the amount scheduled to go into this Line Item.

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