Actions Accomplished at the May 23rd BOD Meeting
- Approved Joe Strout for membership on the Finance Committee.
- Approved David Alexander for membership on the Facilities Committee
- Approved Communications Committee concept for the periodic scheduling of Town Hall Meetings. First one to be West Park related. Date not yet established.
- Approved Community Standards Committee recommendation for holding a community wide garage sale on July 28th (Board had previously approved increasing the number of annual garage sales from 2 to 3).
- Accepted Proposal from Avilla Construction for repairs and modifications to the Somersett West Entrance Monument. This to include removal of the two wing walls, relocation of electrical services and the fabrication of two Somersett Leaf Logo signs to be installed on the Monument. Priced at $56.2K. Price partially offset by a $14K insurance settlement received from previous auto accident involving the Monument.
- Approved a reduction in sales price for the SOA owned lot at 2225 Pepperwood Ct. from $85,000 to $79,000. Anyone looking at this lot can see why it is a hard sale.
- Opened bids for repair and maintenance to drainage ways and structures at various locations within the community. Three bids were received at $39.8K, $95.7K and $107.4K. Board approved acceptance of the lower bid from Aspen Earthworks Inc.
- Approved proposed method for the splitting of the Canyon9 and Mogul Pump House electrical costs between the SOA and the SGCC. This due to Pump House water being shared by both entities. After analysis the proposed SOA/SGCC split was 48%/52% for the Canyon9 Pump House and 42%/58% for the Mogul Pump House. Given the acreage differences between the Canyon9 and SGCC golf courses, one would have expected a lower percentage on the part of the SOA.
- Approved acceptance of FirstService Residential price for the reproduction of SOA documents at 15 cents per copy, which represented a lower negotiated price. However, alternate vendors will be looked into.
- Accepted proposal from Starsound Audio Inc for upgrading TCTC public address system. Proposed price was $10,351.
- Approved revised Real Estate Sign Guidelines (e.g., for sale, open house, security systems, neighborhood watch, beware of dog, no soliciting, etc.). After some discussion the BOD president announced approval based on a 2 (yes), 1 (no) and 1 (abstain) vote count. See discussion below regarding validity of this approval.
- RFP’s have been issued for TCTC Pool Redesign effort. Bids expected for opening at the June 27th BOD Meeting.
- Tabled approval of proposed SOA Website Usage Terms and Conditions due to SOA Attorney concerns. Approved $1500 in legal fees for review and comment.
Rockery Wall Law Suit
The Association Attorney was present at the meeting to address the “Alleged Violation of NRS 116.31088” complaint. The complaint being that the Board did not have the authority to move forward with the Rockery Wall Law Suit because they had not received a majority vote from all allocated homeowners. No written legal opinion was offered, only a discussion by the Attorney who defended the decision to proceed by stating the Board was acting in good faith given that the returned ballots were overwhelming in favor of ratifying the action. Further that the NRS 116.31088 statute was poorly written and if one considered the “four corners of the statute” different interpretations could evolve. He did not put forth any other statute as a basis for continuing the law suit.
There were those in attendance who voiced disagreement with his opinion. He respected this and advised that one could always seek redress via the courts or other means (e.g., thru the Nevada Real Estate Division’s Ombudsman). In response to a homeowner comment he took exception to any monetary benefit being a motive for his support of moving forward with the law suit. Also, that he did not consider non-returned ballots as representing a no vote. This appears to “fly in the face of” a statement from the Homeowner Information Meeting, wherein upon encouraging one to vote, that an abstention was essentially the same as a no vote. Also, notably missing from the Attorney’s defense of the decision to proceed, was any quotation from the statute where one could interpret ratification as being anything other than a majority vote of allocated homeowners. To quote the statute:
“To protect the health, safety and welfare of the members of the association. If a civil action is commenced pursuant to this paragraph without the required vote or agreement, the action must be ratified within 90 days after the commencement of the action by a vote or written agreement of the owners of the units to which at least a majority of votes of the members of the association are allocated. If the association, after making a good faith effort, cannot obtain the required vote or agreement to commence or ratify such a civil action, the association may thereafter seek to dismiss the action without prejudice for that reason only if a vote or written agreement of the owners of the units to which at least a majority of votes of the members of the association are allocated was obtained at the time the approval to commence or ratify the action was sought”.
Clearly the last sentence is a little confusing, but there is no reference to anything other than: “at least a majority of votes of the members of the association” as being a basis for ratification. Additionally, in a previous (2012) SOA civil action against Moana Nursery, the above quoted majority vote was required and obtained.
Real Estate Sign Guidelines Approval ??
As stated above, the revised guidelines were declared approved by the Board President based on a 2 yes, 1 no and 1 abstain vote. However, it is questionable that an approval can be obtained via a 2:1:1 vote split. This based on Article III Section 3.10 of the SOA Bylaws which states:
“Sixty-six percent (66%) of the directors in office constitutes a quorum of the Board for the transaction of business except to adjourn as provided in Section 3.13. Every act or decision done or made by a majority of the directors present at a meeting duly held at which a quorum is present shall be regarded as an act of the Board”.
Four directors were present, which constitutes a quorum, and mathematically it would take three votes, not two, to constitute a majority. Since the 2 out of 4 does not represent a majority any action taken on this basis cannot therefore be considered as “an act of the Board”. Some may consider this as not being a “big deal” as regards the issue voted on, but the Board President is setting a dangerous precedent as regards future approvals for more costly or meaningful issues. This apparent violation of the Bylaws needs resolution before repeating.