April 27th BOD Meeting Recap

somersett UnitedThe SOA Board of Directors held their by-monthly open meeting at The Club at Town Center on April 27th.  Homeowner attendance was rather sparse, about 15 attendees.  Following is a summary of some of the more significant items discussed and/or acted upon at the meeting.  For a copy of the Agenda, please click on the following Link:

April 27th BOD Meeting Agenda


  • The Communication Committee reported that, as a result of the recent homeowner survey (see previous post “Town Hall Meeting on SOA Survey Results” dated April 15th), it became apparent that a large number of homeowners were unaware of association business, rules, amenities, etc.  Therefore, they plan to write a series of informational articles for distribution to homeowners.
  • The Board President also announced plans for holding quarterly “Town Hall” meetings to help keep owners informed on Association business.

Old Business

  • The Board ratified a boundary line adjustment requested by the Somersett Golf & Country Club (SGCC).  Under the SGCC Purchase Agreement, the SGCC retained ownership of a parcel of land upon which their new clubhouse was to be constructed.  The request was for a slight shift in the parcels boundaries.  There is essentially no negative impact on the SOA associated with the requested adjustment, and the SGCC is to pick up all costs associated therewith.
  • The only litigation item currently before the BOD is a lawsuit filed by a “Northgate Homeowner” challenging the Associations authority to impose certain restrictions regarding access and use of land, which is adjacent to their Somersett property, that was purchased from the previous owner of the Northgate Golf Course.  Apparently there are about 14 homeowners in this situation, one of which has an ongoing lawsuit (a June 19th court date has been set) against the SOA with the remainder in some undisclosed status of negotiations.
  • Drainage and erosion issues have been encountered at the East Park.  The BOD approved adding additional funds to a previously approved contract for East Park work.
  • It was decided not to commission the proposed two new SOA Committees (i.e., Facilities and Traffic/Safety) as “formal” Committees with respective Charters. They will instead be formed as temporary “ad hoc” committees.   Liability reasons were stated.
  • Regarding association goals, the FirstServices Residential (FSR) incentive plan was approved; and landscape plans regarding common area trees were deferred to next year for considerations pertaining to the new maintenance contractor, Reno Green.
  • The Club at Town Center (TCTC) physical alterations were discussed.  Previous approvals were given to assess modifications associated with office and conference room issues.  A new request was made by FSR to “wall-in”, with glass, the second floor open area overlooking the first floor.  Reason given was to alleviate noise interference between activities being conducted at these locations at the same time.  The BOD approved having a consultant address both requests simultaneously.

New Business

  • Approved expanding the number of Association officers who can contact Association attorneys for legal advice.
  • Placed a hold on SOA Aesthetic Guidelines editing.  Presumably to accommodate a proposed new fee schedule.  No indication of what the new fee schedule would be.  With regard to AGC approvals, a homeowner commented on the unacceptable length of times being encountered in the approval process, much to the detriment of the owner seeking approval. Suggested that if the request was not processed in a reasonable time frame, it should be considered approved.
  • Some rules changes for TCTC were approved.  In this regard, the Board President advised that, due to government discrimination regulations pertaining to HOA’s, establishing swimming pool access for adult use only was prohibited, even if multiple pools existed.  They are also looking into issuing identity cards with resident pictures to help alleviate use of amenities by unauthorized individuals.  Another homeowner commented on the unfairness of the same assessment fees being placed on all owners regardless of whether they use or do not use Association amenities.  Also with regard to the number of occupants (e.g., children) in a given residence.  Suggested a graduated assessment fee schedule based on these considerations.
  • Increased construction inspections were discussed to assure compliance with SOA regulations, especially with regard to front yard landscaping by developers.
  • Opened bids from three vendors for the TCTC cleaning contract.  All were in the $4K to $5K/month range not including supplies.  BOD will evaluate based on price, references and apples to apples comparisons.
  • The issue regarding prior placement of trees at parkway intersections was discussed.  Apparently there are many incidents where placements of trees at intersections are in violation of visibility safety regulations, thereby requiring their removal, albeit at SOA expense.  Any removal plan will consider transplanting of these trees to other common areas.

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