APPROVED SOA VENDOR PROPOSALS

At the December 14th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting, vendor bids for the following SOA budgeted items were opened, discussed and approved:

TCTC Pool Redesign, Site Plan and Project Management Proposals

Discussion and approvals on this item were deferred until the next BOD Meeting. This to allow for review of a recently received proposal that was not included in the December 14 BOD Meeting Package.

Canyon Nine Golf Course Maintenance

Received Bids (2-year contracts):

  • Somersett Golf and Country Club – $309,000 annually (price included approximately $10k  in electricity costs for water pump operations, which were not included in other vendor bids).
  • Finishing Touch Landscape Maintenance – $321,700 annually
  • Reno Green Landscaping – $262,347 annually

After some discussion, primarily regarding Reno Green’s expertise with golf course maintenance, their history in adhering to contract costs and the significant price difference, the BOD voted to accept the Reno Green bid (three yes, one no and one abstention). This subject to staff review and verification that the Reno Green proposal addresses and meets all proposal requirements.

Town Square Landscape Maintenance

Received Bids:

  • Reno Green Landscaping – $24,144 annually
  • Signature Landscapes – $24,972 annually

Encompasses maintenance of all land within the Town Center complex except for TCTC interior pool area and the land dedicated to the “Greens at Town Center” residential development. The BOD voted unanimously to accept the Signature Landscaping proposal. One reason being to assess them as an alternate to Reno Green for future considerations.

Drainage Way Repair

Received Bids:

  • Gradex – $28,454
  • Sierra Nevada Landscape – $35,327
  • MMW Construction – $30,300

This contract addresses repair work on some common area drainage ditches. The BOD voted unanimously to accept the Gradex bid.

One thought on “APPROVED SOA VENDOR PROPOSALS

  1. Under the proposed SOA ByLaw change (i.e., a 60% requirement for a BOD quorum), three BOD members present would constitute a quorum for conducting Association business (i.e.,as opposed to the current 66% or four BOD member requirement). In this event, under the majority vote rule , two BOD members could make decisions on Association business. Personally, I do not believe that it would be acceptable to have as few as two out of five BOD members making critical decisions for the Association.

    Regarding changing BOD member terms from two to three years, perhaps from a continuity perspective it makes sense. However, I have a concern that owner conflicts for a three year period may arise resulting in member resignations and special election complications. However, this could be alleviated by a Bylaw change that would allow the BOD to appoint a member to fill out the resigned member term as opposed to holding a special election.

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