January 23rd BOD Meeting Minutes

The SU Editor was unavailable for the January 23rd 2019 Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Director (BOD) Meeting and therefore, SU’s usual recap and comments will not follow. However, the SOA’s January 29th “Somersett Happenings “ email distribution provided a link to a draft copy of the Meeting Minutes. This is a new feature and SU applauds the SOA’s decision to make draft meeting minutes available to all Somersett owners in a timely manner. That is, those who have signed up for email notifications. For those of our readers who may not be on the SOA.s email distribution list, a copy of the draft meeting minutes may be obtained via the following link:

janurary 23 bod meeting minutes (draft)

The SOA Somersett Happenings email also summarized a few of the agenda item results as follows:

General Manager’s report: The preliminary draft for the rockery wall inspection program has been completed and forwarded for an engineer for review. Residents have expressed concern about the hillside at The Cliffs which has washed away several times. Management will set up a meeting with Toll Brothers, the Board and city officials to discuss the matter.
Rockery wall repair update: Engineer Seth Padovan reported that DL Wadsworth began repair work last week on the Gypsy Hill rockery wall that was failing. The project should take about 10 weeks. Monitoring continues on the three other rockery walls deemed to be at risk. None of the walls have shown movement at this point.
Committee members approved: The Board approved the appointment of SOA committee members. …..The Board also approved the revised committee charters, which will be posted once they are signed.
Back Nine speed calming devices: The Board approved a project to install speed calming devices on Back Nine trail. The project is fully funded by owners who live in the area at no cost to the SOA.
Landscape RFPS: The Board opened bids from Bright View, Signature, and Reno Green, but voted to postpone a final decision until the bids could be reviewed. The Board will review the proposals and interview the contractors at a Board Workshop tomorrow at 9:30 am (this session is not open to members).”

However, the SOA summary did not address Homeowner comments, which provided much more interesting reading than agenda item results. It appears that the meeting was attended by many Sierra Canyon (SCAN) owners voicing their objections over how the SOA was handling (or could one say mishandling) issues affecting the SCAN Community. SCAN Homeowner comments addressed the following issues:

  • An alleged threat against the SOA management staff by a Sierra Canyon (SCAN) resident.
  • A call for Sierra Canyon to be able to secede from the SOA Master Association.
  • Hostility over SCAN residents having to pay (via the special assessment) for rockery wall failures outside of SCAN, and the irresponsibility on the part of the SOA in maintaining  and inspecting “their” walls.
  • A concern over the stability of the vertical hill slopes surrounding the Toll Bros Cliffs Development, and the future liability for SCAN owners should failures occur.
  • Poor leadership on the part of the SOA in the handling of the Somersett Development Company lawsuit. A call for SOA Board Member Roland to resign or take a leave of absence until the lawsuit is settled, this due to his wife’s employment with the Somersett Development Company.
  • Removal of the Del Webb signage from the West Entry Monument
  • Controversy over SOA/AGC control of the SCAN/ARC regarding inspections and approvals for non-structural changes.

Most of the issues commented on above by SCAN owners are not new and have been previously discussed, but apparently not satisfactorily resolved in the opinion of those present at the meeting. Also, comments by SCAN Board Members with regard to the actions of the SOA Board have been hostile in nature and do not set a good tone for future discussions between the two. What is not apparent is do the comments by those at the meeting reflect the majority of SCAN owners, or just a disgruntled few? Perhaps some SCAN owners would care to comment?

Another agenda item not discussed in the SOA’s meeting minutes summary is the request by a Somersett owner to plant approximately 11 trees on a common area hill adjacent to their property and to water them (via drip line extension) at their own expense. This ostensibly to beautify the hill (an admirable objective), but also to protect their privacy from unobstructed views of their backyard from new homes being built nearby. Apparently no final BOD action was taken on this request. This is surprising, given the past ruling against an owner for a similar request citing liability concerns. SU believes that refusal of this request is a no brainer, given not only liability concerns, but what happens if the owner decides to sell their property and the buyer does not want to continue to maintain them? Also sets a bad precedence for a multitude of other owners wanting to modify common area landscaping to suit their own fancy, perhaps to the detriment of others.

Under the Committee Reports Section of the meeting agenda, the Facilities Committee made a recommendation to the BOD “that the Board not pursue Jensen’s and Pollock’s SOA lot purchase within the Town Square, as both offers would possibly preclude from future HOA amenities and the Committee would need additional time to recommend additional amenities”. No BOD follow-on discussion was evident in the Meeting Minutes regarding this request. However, it would be interesting to know what SOA lots are in question, what price were the purchasers offering and for what purpose?

As always comments are welcome!

6 thoughts on “January 23rd BOD Meeting Minutes

  1. The comments made by SC homeowners at the SOA Bpard meeting regarding all the items mentioned in your posting is shared by many SC residents. 8f we could break away from Somersett right now, we would.

  2. I agree with Karen and Ivonne on this, and all of the SCAN home owners I have spoken to also agree. SCAN represents a little under 40% of the total homes in SOA and we have had to fight and claw and complain just to get noticed by SOA. I would also like to point out that the December BOD meeting was also very well attended by SCAN home owners and I suspect that the February meeting will be the same way. The Jan BOD meeting also had all of the same complaints from the SCAN home owners. The one thing that was left off of the review about the home owner comments that I think was very important and needs to be kept in the open, the SCAN home owners, and some SOA home owners who spoke with me, were also upset about the Christmas Lights. One of the comments I got was in Oct the SOA BOD voted to save the money but then came back around in Dec to spend the money to put the Christmas lights up in the roundabouts. The biggest complaint about the Christmas lights was that there was a large donation from Somersett Development to the SOA to help defer the expense of putting up the roundabout Christmas lights. SOA is suing Somersett Development for the Rockery walls, coming around and taking money for the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the SOA is really poor optics.

    1. Thank you Steve for your comments.I hope the SC Board will continue to work on the separation of SC from Somersett. I know that the homeowners are, and will be supportive of those efforts, including contributing to legal fees, knowing that the separation will result in substantial savings in dues and better governing.

  3. I don’t know that all Sierra Canyon members are interested in the large upfront costs that would be associated with separating from the SOA. I also know many people who not agree with the assumption that a separation “will result in better governing”.

    1. I understand that not every owner in Sierra Canyon would be interested in considering splitting from Somersett for a number of reasons; especially the cost involved in doing so. I believe that all options should be studied relative to solving the numerous problems we have had,and continue to have, with Somersett. The separation from Somersett is one option. If we were able to do so,and the majority of SC owners were to vote for proceeding and contribute to the legal costs, the owners would get that money back eventually in the savings of almost $100. a month in dues we pay to Somersett.
      As to better governing I meant to say that with just one Board to deal with, better communication and faster response to owners problems can be achieved.

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