February BOD Meeting

Somersett United
Somersett United

Some of the more significant issues discussed and or approved at the February 22nd Board of Directors Meeting were as follows:

 

 

  1. The Board approved a Finance Committee recommendation to award Reno Green the Tree Mapping and Irrigation Mapping contracts.  The Tree Mapping contract price was $1/Tree with an estimated 7500 trees to be documented.  The Irrigation Mapping price was unspecified but not to exceed $9000. Selection of Reno Green from the three bidders was obvious, given familiarity with the SOA landscaping and the fact they were the low bidder for both.  Contract awards are subject to acceptance of some conditions (e.g., SOA ownership of maps and associated databases) and review by SOA legal counsel.
  2.  The Board approved the West Park Committee recommendation on the re-allocation of land usage for the proposed West Park (for details see the previous SU “West Park Update” post dated March 2, 2017).
  3. The Board approved the issuance of four free pool use guest passes per year per household, not valid on holidays. It was also announced the lap pool was now open year-round from 6AM to 4PM.
  4. The Board approved holding their BOD open meetings on a monthly rather that bi-monthly basis.  This to begin immediately.
  5. The Community Manager briefly discussed winter storm damage issues within Somersett.  Specific problem areas mentioned were in Woodcrest (soil erosion and hillside slippage), the SGCC’s 14th hole (upper and lower rock wall failures) and drainage problems from SOA boundary walls into homeowner lots.  Seth Padovan (AGC Committee Consulting Engineer) has been working on these issues for the SOA and obtaining proposals from Geotechnical Engineers for problem investigation and repair solutions. These are expected shortly. However, repair work at this time is improbable due to the extremely wet soil conditions.
  6.  The originally planned Homeowner Town Hall Meeting on The Club at Town Center expansion was postponed to allow additional time to address cost related issues.  Instead the Board will be holding a workshop with the Finance and Strategic Planning & Facilities Committees on March 7th to discuss proposals, costs and preferred directions.
  7. Under the Homeowner Comments agenda, several Sierra Canyon owners spoke out against the generic letter sent to many owners addressing non-compliance with front yard planting requirements (see previous SU post “First the Fence, now the Plant Police”).  Comments centered on the following:
  • The Non-Compliance letter was generic with no specificity as to where the recipients were not compliant with planting requirements.
  • Owners purchased their home from the Developer (Pulte) in good faith and were unaware that front yard landscaping was non-compliant.
  • Many bought years ago and do not understand why this long after closing they are now receiving a non-compliance letter. Very unprofessional to hold owners responsible for a Developer oversight.
  • The SOA should have been overseeing the Developer to insure planting requirements were being met. To now expect owners to communicate and resolve their issues with Pulte is unreasonable. The SOA should be pressuring the Developer to correct non-compliances rather than placing the burden on the homeowners
  • The Non-Compliance letter was prepared and issued by the SOA without coordination with the Sierra Canyon Association. This lack of communication furthers the divide between the two associations.
  • Letter showed a lack of common sense and good judgement and should be rescinded.
  • A Sierra Canyon homeowner commented on the lack of communication between the Somersett and Sierra Canyon Boards. Proposed that routine meetings between Board members (two from each Board) be held on a monthly or bi-monthly basis.