To Secede or Not to Secede?

There appears to be a rising sentiment among Sierra Canyon (SC) Homeowners (and supported by SC Board Members) to withdraw from the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) master association and become an independent HOA. This for a variety of reasons previously highlighted on this website, and apparently exacerbated by the Rockery Wall failure liability and ensuing special assessments.

However, is a divorce really possible? Most likely not. The SC sub-association is subject to the “master” declarations unless they are amended by due process. It is one thing for SC owners to amend their own association declarations, but quite another to amend the master declarations, especially given that there are no apparent provisions within the master declarations to permit a sub-association to pull out. Even if there were, the probability that a majority of ALL Somersett owners (not just Sierra Canyon owners) would vote to allow withdrawal is highly unlikely. A review of Nevada Law, NRS 116 Article 2 “Creation, Alterations, and Termination of Common Interest Communities”, addresses association mergers, but not disassociations. However, it does address “Termination” of an HOA, which requires an 80% vote of all unit owners. Not sure how or if this would apply to termination of the relationship between a master and sub-association. Perhaps some “Legal Beagle” out their would care to comment.

There have been indications that the SC Board is in favor of hiring legal counsel to investigate withdrawal from the SOA. Given that lawyers are always interested in “feathering their own nest”, one must be careful about being “led down the primrose path” here. This could result in a very costly endeavor. Most likely legal fees in the 100’s of thousands. It could be argued that SC’s relief from the $92/month common area assessment would more than offset SC’s legal costs. However, what additional costs would SC owners encounter from services no longer being provided by the SOA via this assessment?

There is also the Somersett Planned Unit Development (PUD) Book to consider. This is a recorded Washoe County document that governs the establishment and make-up of the Somersett community. To what extent would this require amendment and government approval? It is also possible that the original Declarant (Somersett Development Company) would also have a say in this matter. Most likely other unknown complexities to consider.

It is inevitable that when two governing bodies oversee the same territory, there can be disputes and misunderstandings. The resolution of which may just be a matter of education on the governing documents (those we all signed up for when purchasing our units) and whose responsibility it is to accomplish one thing or another.

There is no question that many SC owners feel they have been mistreated by the SOA, perhaps rightfully so. However, the key to resolving differences is cooperation and respectful dialog between the parties, something that currently appears to be lacking, at least on the part of some SC Board Members. Likewise, if the SOA has the authority to impose an action that is objectionable to SC, rather than unilaterly acting on it, perhaps some constructive discussion and common sense can prevail, with perhaps the granting of variances as permitted under Article VI Section 10 of the SOA CC&R’s.

Whatever the case, an attempt by SC to withdraw from the SOA master association should not be taken lightly, or acted on emotionally, as the probability of a successful outcome borders on zero.

The preceding represents the opinion of SU only, and is not based on any particular knowledge or experience relating to the separation of HOA master and sub-associations. Will leave that to others.

Comments from all sides welcome!

18 thoughts on “To Secede or Not to Secede?

  1. If any HOA change would be undertaken, I would lean toward Disbanding Sierra Canyon Associates and becoming a division of Somersett only! Rather than split off, let’s reduce duplications and be one HOA ? We could still have our own additional rules and Lodge/activity programs for seniors, but blend all assets into SOA. I think this might be a doable change and very cost effective? One Board, one set of Rules and one new set of accounting sheets? I have no special need for the Sierra Canyon name, or even Del Webb for that matter.

    1. Don – Sounds like a reasonable proposal. By a “division” of the SOA do you envision a separate SOA cost center, (i.e. much like the “Private Gates & Streets” and “The Club at Town Center”), whose residents would have a different set of rules to accommodate their “senior community” status? The Sierra Canyon Aspen Lodge and other common area assets (collectively owned by Sierra Canyon owners) would have to be transferred to the SOA. Per NRS 116.2118, I believe this would require an 80% vote of all Sierra Canyon unit owners. Is this achievable? Are 80% really that upset with the SOA?
      Also, aside from just having one governing Board, I doubt this would save Sierra Canyon owners any money due to lower monthly assessments. – Jim Haar

    2. Don, this would not work for SC. Most of us like having the senior only amenities that we have. Because SC is its own association it can be a senior only community as established by HOPA (Housing for Older Persons Act) SOA is not, and cannot become a HOPA community because it is a family community. As a family community all amenities have to be shared equally by all age groups. If SC becomes a part of SOA then SC also becomes a family community. Therefore, there can be no age segregated amenities.

  2. As I have stressed on multiple occasions, it is not possible for SC to secede from Somersett. It is possible for SC owners to dissolve their association and still be a part of Somersett.

    Immediately below is copied from a California newsletter put out by a law firm. Yes we are not CA, but Nevada also has “paperwork” that must be followed in order for a corporation to dissolve and SC is a corporation.

    This whole matter demands thoughtful attention by a small committee of owners from both Somersett and SC to work out details. The time has come to stop talking and figure out how to get it done. Owners in both associaions will benefit.

    Copied from the Adams/Stirling Newsletter of February 10, 2019

    DISSOLVING THE ASSOCIATION

    QUESTION: I am a homeowner in the Paradise Pines Owners Association. On November 8, the Camp Fire struck our association. It was the largest fire in California history and wiped out the town of Paradise and many homes in our association.

    Many owners lost employment, many are still displaced and will never return. Homeowners are finding themselves in dire straits whether their home survived or not.

    Our association serves no purpose for what is left. Many of us would like to dissolve our association. Are their special circumstances to dissolution due to this disaster?

    ANSWER: The Camp Fire was stunning in its speed and destructive power. I understand the desire by some to never return to the area. Your ability to dissolve your association depends on your governing documents and various approvals.

    Governing Documents. Your CC&Rs should have a section labeled “Damage/Destruction to Improvements” or something similar. It addresses destruction of common area elements, reconstruction costs, insurance, and possible membership approval regarding reconstruction or dissolution.

    Amenities. For a planned development such as yours, dissolving the association could be difficult to justify. If common area amenities were damaged or destroyed (a clubhouse, playground, etc.) but homes remain largely intact, dissolving the association may not be an option since rebuilding amenities may be fully covered by the association’s insurance.

    Property Values. Restoring amenities would increase property values. A home in an association with amenities has more value than the identical home in the same location without amenities. For that reason, existing mortgagees (lenders) might have a voice in the decision.

    Sale of Common Areas. Dissolution of the association means the common areas must be sold since there will be no entity to maintain them. Depending on the configuration of your common areas, they may have little or no value. If the common areas cannot be sold and if the county is unwilling to take ownership, a court may be unwilling to dissolve your association even if the membership approved the dissolution.

    Board & Membership Approval. Because of the significant impact of dissolution, it must be approved by the board of directors (Corp. Code §§7911(a)(1) & 8610(c)) and 100% of the membership (Corp. Code §8724).

    RECOMMENDATION: Your board needs to consult legal counsel about possible dissolution of your association and the various legal requirements for doing so. For more information, see “Dissolving an Association.”

    WHAT FOLLOWS ARE FROM TWO EMAILS I HAVE SENT TO VARIOUS SC OWNERS.

    First One:

    Secession is not possible. However, SC owners could vote to dissolve their association while continuing membership in the Somersett Owners Association, but not be in a sub-association requiring separate dues.

    After that is accomplished, there will be no need for SC Bylaws. Being part of Somersett as a non-sub-association means ONE of everything from a single board to CC&R’s; Bylaws; Architectural/Landscaping Committee; guidelines; rules; website; law firm; reserve analyst; auditor; landscaping contractor; etc. all with one budget and dues. One property manager at Somersett with an assistant property manager at our Lodge so it can be managed and owners don’t have to go down to Somersett to have their questions answered and concerns addressed.

    The end result of dissolving the SC Association would mean no dues to SC and increased dues to Somersett. However, the increase in dues already paid to Somersett would be much less than what is now paid to SC.

    Of course, Somersett would have to agree with our end goals, but they have nothing to lose as we would still be paying dues to them, just not SC. A small team of members from both associations would comprise a committee to plan how to successfully accomplish mutual goals. Initially there would be no need to employ an attorney.

    The reason secession is not possible is that the PUD (Planned Unit Development) document the Reno City Council approved and recorded that created Somersett contains within it a provision for an active adult community.

    The City has told me that Somersett was built to particular PUD provisions and those carry on in perpetuity. While revisions can be made to the PUD, none can be made that would conflict with or do away with existing provisions and the City is obligated to ensure that Somersett will continue as originally planned and approved.

    The provision, and a good one for us, is that there must be an area set aside in the community for active seniors. However, the PUD does not say that area must be a sub-association. It can be an area that has certain mutually desirable restrictions agreed upon with Somersett, e.g. age restricted and Lodge usage requirements.

    The PUD divided all of Somersett into six villages (not Village Six a part of Sierra Canyon). Essentially the six villages are zones for development, e.g. Somersett Village Six is now being developed as the Toll project above the fire station. Among the Somersett six villages, Number 5 is Sierra Canyon.

    Pulte was “given” Village 5 to develop as an active adult community as mandated in the PUD. However, there is nothing in the PUD requiring Sierra Canyon to be an association unto itself any more than the Toll project which is not a sub-association. Pulte made SC an association copying other Pulte/Del Webb projects with associations.

    And we have an opening. A Sierra Canyon owner and Somersett board member campaigned on updating the Somersett CC&R’s. Why not go all the way and update all governing documents so that Sierra Canyon as a sub-association disappears but still has certain desirable restrictions and privileges within Somersett, including a guaranteed seat on the board (why not one seat for SC, one for The Vue, one for The Village and two for Somersett); and no architectural/landscape fees for routine “simple” projects (to be defined).

    Money is the name of the game and Somersett doesn’t lose any money.

    Not an easy task, but if Exxon and Mobile could do it, so can we.

    Thank you for reading this .

    Second one:

    TO: Sierra Canyon Owners
    FROM: Joe Bower, Sierra Canyon Owner

    This is long, but I do hope you will read it.

    The time has come to stop, look, listen, and act. Approving proposed bylaws is not what is needed.

    Rip them up and head in a new direction by addressing The Number One Desire of Sierra Canyon (SC) Owners. That is, to stop paying double dues (SC and Somersett).

    Secession from Somersett is not possible. However, SC owners could vote to dissolve their association while continuing membership in the Somersett Owners Association, but not be in a sub-association requiring separate dues. Since SC is a legal corporation, we would need to follow Nevada State laws regarding dissolution of a corporation. Title to owned common assets would need to be transferred to Somersett.

    After dissolution, there will be no need for SC Bylaws nor any other SC governing documents. Being part of Somersett as a non sub-association means ONE of everything from ONE board; ONE CC&R’s; ONE Bylaws; ONE Architectural/Landscaping Committee; ONE guidelines; ONE rules; ONE website; ONE law firm; ONE reserve analyst; ONE auditor; ONE landscaping contractor; etc. etc. all with ONE budget and ONE dues. Somersett would have title to and maintain all common assets. ONE licensed property manager at Somersett with a licensed assistant property manager at our Lodge so it can be managed and owners don’t have to go down to Somersett to have their questions answered and concerns addressed.

    The end result of dissolving the SC Association would mean no dues to SC and increased dues to Somersett. However, the increase to dues already paid to Somersett would be much less than what is being paid separately to SC.

    Should SC rockery walls fail all Somersett Owners Association members would pitch in to have them fixed.

    Under filled classes/groups/fitness activities at the Lodge could admit Somersett people. When full and a SC resident wanted to join, a Somersett person would have to leave. Usage of the Lodge by non-SC residents would include bathrooms, not showers or pool/spa.

    Of course before even voting to dissolve, Somersett would have to agree with our end goals, e.g. remain 55+, and we need to work toward them together. Somersett has nothing to lose as we would still be paying dues to them, just not to SC. A small team of members from both associations would comprise a committee to plan how to successfully accomplish mutual goals and rewrite documents. Initially there would be no need to employ an attorney.

    The reason secession is not possible is the PUD (Planned Unit Development) document that created Somersett, approved by the Reno City Council, and recorded with the County Recorder contains within it the provision for an active adult community to be in greater Somersett (see document #3738238, page 1-16).

    The City has told me Somersett is to be built to the provisions in the PUD and those carry on in perpetuity. Revisions can be made to the PUD (cost is less than $10,000 for the paperwork required by the City – and that could be shared between our two associations), if any are necessary which I don’t think would be. No revisions can be made that would conflict with or do away with the existing provisions or their intent. If revisions are made to the PUD, the City Council would need to approve them as the City is obligated to ensure that Somersett will continue as originally planned and approved. The active adult community would still exist, so no need to revise the PUD, in my opinion.

    The provision that there must be an area set aside within greater Somersett for active seniors is a good one for us, and the PUD does not say that area must be a sub-association. It can be an area that has certain mutually desirable restrictions agreed upon with Somersett, e.g. age restricted and Lodge usage requirements, without being a sub-association.

    The PUD divided all of Somersett into six villages (not Village Six a part of Sierra Canyon). Essentially the six villages are zones for development, e.g. Somersett Village Six is now being developed as the Toll project above the fire station. Among the Somersett six villages, Number 5 is Sierra Canyon.

    Pulte was “assigned” Village 5 to develop as an active adult community. However, there is nothing in the PUD requiring Sierra Canyon to be an association unto itself any more than the Toll project which is not a sub-association. Pulte made SC an association by copying other Pulte/Del Webb projects in the nation with associations. Pulte was the original builder of The Vue. It too is an association. Why? What purpose? I would be confident that Vue owners don’t like paying double dues. Why aren’t the projects closest to us, Ryder homes and Lennar homes, sub-associations? Why not the other Toll projects? Why don’t builder projects within Somersett other than SC, The Vue, and The Village have a sub-association? Why not one association for all of Somersett with no subs? Certainly Somersett is not too large. There are many associations across America with thousands more homes in them than Somersett and its subs have.

    And we have an opening. A Sierra Canyon owner and Somersett board member campaigned on updating the Somersett CC&R’s; and has already stated he would like to personally meet with SC owners about our mutual relationship. Why not go all the way and update all governing documents so that Sierra Canyon as a sub-association disappears but still has certain desirable restrictions and privileges within Somersett, including a guaranteed seat on the board (why not one seat for SC, one for The Vue, one for The Village and two for Somersett? – or increase the board to 7 members); and no architectural/landscape fees for “routine simple” projects (to be defined).

    Money is the name of the game and Somersett doesn’t lose any money.

    Not an easy task, but if Exxon and Mobile could do it, so can we.

    Thank you for reading this.

    PS If you are interested in Somersett “goings-on,” go to somersettunited.net. You can put your email address in the Follow Box and when an article is posted, you will be sent a copy. Comments to articles are not emailed out. You need to go to the site to read them. You will not receive any junk mail and your email address will not be sold or marketed. Articles come out only a few times a month. If you want to have an article of your own posted, send it to somersettunited@gmail.com Articles are not censored, but they are checked for libelous statements and 4-letter words.

    1. The one statement I have a problem with is: “A home in an association with amenities has more value than the identical home in the same location without amenities.”

      Reno homes not encumbered by HOAs like ours sell faster an HOA homes. Non HOA homes are in high demand in Reno/Sparks where as more and more SC residents want out. Check out Mogul or Hidden Valley (non HOA portions).

    2. Excellent write-up and suggestions, Joe! Thank you. Is anyone else reading, listening, thinking???

  3. “the key to resolving differences is cooperation and respectful dialog between the parties”

    No, the key to resolving this issue is to get rid on one of the two groups that are screwing up our lives. SOA mismanagement and their current assessment and probable future assessments are doing nothing but lowering our collective property values.

    1) None of the rock wall issues are in Sierra Canyon but Sierra canyon retirees must pay for them.

    2) If Sierra Canyon has similar rock wall issues, Somersett has stated they have no responsibility to correct them.

    That’s having your cake and eating it too.

    1. Dusty – I can understand Sierra Canyon owners frustration over having to pay for rockery wall failures not within Sierra Canyon. However, the rockery wall failures (Gypsy Hill and Trail Ridge Court) are not within my subdivision either. Are you suggesting that only owners whose properties are affected by the rockery wall failures should be assessed for their repair? I am not so concerned about shared assessments as I am with how the SOA BOD initiated and handled the whole litigation issue. – Jim Haar

      1. Jim, I think that it is important to state that the current issues facing the SC-SOA dispute are not the work of the current BODs. Rather they are the work of past SOA BODs. Either failing to recognize the need for proper inspections of the rockery walls, or actually making it a point to go after SC. I have spent the last 3 months pulling documents to review some actions take by a previous SOA board against SC. I have found a number of NRS violations. One of the NRS violations I found actually effected all home owners in the community. I will say that this one incident has been partially fixed, with one minor relapse by SOA that SC did not allow to occur. I will also say that the current SOA board seems willing to negotiate a settlement on one of the issues which is a credit to the current board.

        Something that we should also keep in mind, the old saying comes to mind, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Our mutual enemy at this time is Toll brothers and we can do more for all current SOA home owners if we show a solid front with the city on that project. And, we still need to keep an eye on the golf course, SGCC. The warranty that was part of the sale of the land expired on 12-31-18 and SOA is now responsible for equipment and a few other things. Well, I do believe that some of the equipment that was turned over to SOA on 1-1-19 does not meet the standards set in the negotiate warranty. In other words, SOA may have just been given another large expense. We will have to wait and see on this one, but again, a solid front on this works out better for all of us.

  4. Check out Dissolving a Nevada Corporation on the Internet. Fees to the State are less than $1,000.

    Capable owners can draw up necessary changes to our CC&R’s, Bylaws, etc. and run them by lawyers for each association. Cost will not be hundreds of thousands.

    Hey, The Vue and The Village: dissolve your corporations/associations and join in.

    Fellow SOA members, dissolving is the long term solution. Let’s speed it up and not pay attention to what SC president has said: “As for SOA, that is the most ridiculous and out of nowhere idea. They are not only non responsive but act as obstructionist on a continuous basis” or what others may think.

    This is doable with people having the right mindset working on it.

    1. Joe – I believe you are wrong on your opinion that legal costs for Sierra Canyon to dissolve their association would not amount to 100’s of thousands. State fees are not the only issue, No doubt the SOA would fight the process and their legal fees (to be shared by SC owners as well) would have to be taken into consideration, after all, Sierra Canyon owners are also master association members as well. As an example the SOA has already spent approximately $220K on the Rockery Wall litigation and $280K on the Northgate Owners property access litigation, both are yet to be resolved. Other litigations over $100K include the past Moana Chapter 40 and CC&R violation litigations, not nearly as complex as SC withdrawing from the master association. Meaningful discussions and compromise between the SOA and SC Boards represent the most logical approach. If the current Boards are unable to do this them replace them. – Jim Haar

  5. Did King George III have the right to impose taxes ,take over property, impose new laws , etc, on the American colonies without discussion or prior approval from the citizens of the American colonies?Yes he did , as supreme master of the kingdom.
    What the King imposed ; was it right, was it moral, did it benefit its citizens,did it command loyalty and respect for the Crown,? The citizens of the future USA decided that the answer was no, and therefore they decided to secede from the UK. They knew their decision meant war, but they felt that it would be worthwhile if it meant a better life for its citizens and the ability to self govern.
    Well, we know how that story ended. I am not saying the current situation compares to our war of independence but the principles involved then are present now.Our Boards have met and have negotiated , not always successfully, beggining with Pulte and now with SOA . I know that we have complained over a number of issues over the years; poor landscaping management, maintenance of the trails,
    insufficient number of safety patrol presence in SC, ignoring SC Board on decisions affecting SC owners, etc Letters and email addresses were ignored.Speakers at Board meetings were meant with silence..Even our DelWebb sign was taken away from us and in doing so took away our individuality .
    We have grown tired of been treated like second class citizens.So many us feel very strongly about severing our ties with the SOA. Nobody thinks that it will be easy or inexpensive . But to accept the current conditions without a fight is unacceptable.

  6. Both together equally and mutually are in violation of the CC&Rs, however I am sure they have some legal way of disregarding them. As Homeowners, we have little recourse as the legal system does not want to address the rights of the Homeowners. There is no Money in it.

  7. All of Somersett can be divided by sub-association names/geographical boundaries; builder projects; neighborhood nicknames; walls and trails and parkways; etc. However, the most important divisions are the three accounting cost centers (Common & Canyon 9; The Club at Town Center; Gates & Private Streets) that make greater Somersett.

    Every owner in greater Somersett, whether in a sub-association or not, pays dues to Common & Canyon 9. Sub-association owners also pay dues to their own association.

    Common includes all common areas and their content grass, trees, trails, walls, etc. and their landscaping and other maintenance. However, Common does not include the common areas within sub-associations.

    From the minute a SC (Sierra Canyon) sub-association owner closes escrow, s/he owes dues to Common & Canyon 9. SC (aka Village #5) is among the six Villages (large areas) approved by the City for development and that make up all of Somersett.

    Village 5 owners will ALWAYS be paying dues to the Common & Canyon 9 cost center forever. Village 5 cannot be withdrawn from the Somersett community-at-large. It inhabitants cannot have Village 5 secede from Somersett. The master developer of Somersett and the City agreed that Somersett will always have Village 5 as an active adult community and it shall remain so in perpetuity as that was the intent of both parties and was approved and ratified by the Reno City Council.

    As has been stated previously, neither the master developer nor the City agreed that Village 5 would also have an association of its own. Because of that the Village 5 association can be dissolved.

    After dissolution, the Village 5 owners would no longer have an association to pay dues to other than Somersett’s Common & Canyon 9.

    If Village 5 owners do not care about paying dues to two associations along with being responsible for Common & Canyon 9 expenses that arise outside of Village 5, then continue as is.

    If Village 5 owners have disagreements with Somersett on how things should be run, e.g. the process for getting architectural and landscaping projects approved, they can continue to see how they can be rectified, but double dues will remain in place without dissolution. Since the early 2000’s Somersett has not been willing to lessen its authority over its sub-associations (even while Village 5 owners have been Somersett board members) and, in my opinion, is unlikely to do in the future.

    Village 5 may at some point in time need repairs to its rockery walls or incur other common expenses of its own. If the Village 5 association has not been dissolved, Village 5 owners will pay for those expenses themselves with not help from the rest of Somersett owners. If Village 5 dissolves its association, the cost of such expenses will be divided among all Somersett owners, just as the current expenses for Common rockery walls have been.

    Dissolution is possible and no one knows its cost. Cost numbers should not be bantered about until after a small number of qualified owners have analyzed the financial effects of a dissolution. That should not be a difficult task.

    Once we have solid estimates, then is the time for Village 5 and Somersett to negotiate certain rights and privileges desirable to both associations and before any vote is taken..

    Anyone Village 5 owner who does not like paying double dues and believes dissolution is not possible, needs to seriously consider moving out for as as long as they own in the Village 5 association double dues are an irreversible fact of life.

    There is no reason for the Somersett Owners Association to fight against Village 5 dissolving its association because after dissolution Somersett will still continue receive dues from Village 5 owners same as now. Compromises between two boards on numerous issues will not negate the dues every Village 5 owner will pay to his/her own association unless there is no association to pay them to.

    1. Joe, we know your preference as to which choice should work best for SC residents: dissolve the SC sub association and become part of the master association of Somersett.
      I have no doubt that you are an intelligent person and certainly knowleadgeable about all documents pertaining to SC and Somersette HOA’s.
      However, the analysis of SC owners obligations under both secession and joining Somersett should be left to an impartial expert on this field.The hiring of this expert should be done preferably by the Board. Should the Board decline to do so, the owners can join together in paying the person.This expert should be well versed in state and city statutes governing HOA’s in Nevada , have the ability to analyze legal and planning policies affecting large developments such as Somersett,have the ability to write and present recommendations to governing boards and owners etc. It is then and only then that Board and the owners can have all the information they need to start to make a decision.

  8. All of Somersett is divided by builder projects; trails, parkways, walls; sub-association corporations and their geographical boundaries; neighborhoods, etc., but the most important divisions are the Somersett Association accounting cost centers: Common & Canyon 9; The Club at Town Center; Gates & Private Streets.

    All 3,135 lot owners in greater Somersett pay dues (currently $92/month) to Common & Canyon 9 whether or not they are in a sub-association. Sub-association owners also pay separate dues to their own association (currently $110 to Sierra Canyon, aka SC or Village 5.

    Common & Canyon 9 includes all common areas in greater Somersett and their content grass, trees, trails, walls, etc. and their landscaping and other maintenance. EXCEPT Common & Canyon 9 does not include the common areas within sub-associations.

    From the minute a SC sub-association owner closes escrow, s/he owes dues to Common & Canyon 9. Village #5 is among the six Villages (large areas) approved by the City for development and that make up all of Somersett.

    Village 5 owners will ALWAYS be paying dues to the Common & Canyon 9 cost center forever. Village 5 cannot be withdrawn from the Somersett community-at-large. It inhabitants cannot have Village 5 secede from Somersett. The master developer of Somersett and the City agreed that Somersett will always have Village 5 as an active adult community and it shall remain so in perpetuity as that was the intent of both parties and was approved and ratified by the Reno City Council.

    As has been stated previously, neither the master developer nor the City agreed that Village 5 would also have an association of its own. Because of that the Village 5 association can be dissolved.

    After dissolution, the Village 5 owners would no longer have an association to pay dues to other than Somersett’s Common & Canyon 9.

    If Village 5 owners do not care about paying dues to two associations along with being responsible for Common & Canyon 9 expenses that arise outside of Village 5, then continue as is.

    If Village 5 owners have disagreements with Somersett on how things should be run, e.g. the process for getting architectural and landscaping projects approved, they can continue to see how they can be rectified, but double dues will remain in place without dissolution. Since the early 2000’s Somersett has not been willing to lessen its authority over its sub-associations (even while Village 5 owners have been Somersett board members) and, in my opinion, is unlikely to do in the future.

    Village 5 may at some point in time need repairs to its rockery walls or incur other common expenses of its own. If the Village 5 association has not been dissolved, Village 5 owners will pay for those expenses themselves with no help from the rest of Somersett owners. If Village 5 dissolves its association, the cost of such expenses will be divided among all 3,135 Somersett owners, just as the current expenses for Common rockery walls have been, and not just the Village 5’s 1,212 owners. The larger the number of owners paying means the less each Village 5 owner pays (and vice versa for Somersett owners).

    Dissolution is possible and no one knows its cost. Cost numbers should not be bantered about until after a small number of qualified owners have analyzed the financial effects of a dissolution. That should not be a difficult task.

    Once we have solid estimates, then is the time for Village 5 and Somersett to negotiate certain rights and privileges desirable to both associations and before any vote is taken..

    Anyone Village 5 owner who does not like paying double dues and believes dissolution is not possible, needs to seriously consider moving out for as as long as they own in the Village 5 association double dues are an irreversible fact of life.

    There is no reason for the Somersett Owners Association to fight against Village 5 dissolving its association because after dissolution Somersett will still continue receive dues from Village 5 owners same as now. Compromises between two boards on numerous issues will not negate the dues every Village 5 owner will pay to his/her own association unless there is no association to pay them to.

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