March 27th SOA Board Meeting Recap

Following is a recap of topics (obviously paraphrased) discussed and/or approved at the March 27th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting.

Homeowner Comments:

  • Jim Haar and one other homeowner (Dean ?) spoke on the “Ad-HOC Committee for SGCC Equipment Repair” agenda Item. Basically, questioning the need for such a committee. Opinion being that the SGCC just needs to live up to their responsibilities under the Water Facilities Agreement, which is clearly defined, therefore no need for a committee to discuss. Dean expressed a concern that discussions/negotiations with the SGCC could possibly lead to the SOA contributing funds for repairs clearly within the SGCC’s realm of responsibility. This due to lack of SGCC funding to do the required repairs. Bottom line: No committee needed, just a demand for action on the part of the SGCC to perform the required repairs. If they are indeed having revenue problems, perhaps they need to re-assess their organizational structure (e.g., Private or Public). No more financial contributions from the SOA!
  • Steve Guderian spoke up in defense of his agenda item alleging NRS violations pertaining to the Community Standards Committee. Mr. Guderian stated he had a genuine concern on how the committee conducted its business and wanted it make sure all homeowners are afforded due process with regard to cited violations, which he believes not to be the case under the current structure. Hence his right to allege the NRS violations and to pursue resolution via appropriate channels.

Editorial Note: See previous SU Post of March 19th entitled “NRS 116 Alleged Violation Letter to SOA BOD” for discussion and a copy of Mr. Guderians letter to the SOA Board.

  • Nancy Chantos addressed the Board about the formation of an Ad-Hoc Committee or other means to consider adoption of an Emergency Evacuation plan for the Somersett community in the event of fire, earthquake or other natural disasters.
  • Loren Farell, Sierra Canyon Board Member, and past President, again addressed the SOA Board on demanding action to resolve the conflicts between the SOA and the Sierra Canyon Association (SCA). Bringing up the “Secede from the SOA” issue and questioning where the Sierra Canyon assessment contributions to the SOA go.

Editorial Note: As stated in previous SU editorials, whatever the issue, if the SCA Board adopted a less confrontational approach to the SOA Board, perhaps more positive results would evolve. Also, the question as to what do the SCA assessments support, the answer is obvious, just like all other Somersett owners, to maintain the SOA’s common areas. That is, landscaping along the Somersett Parkway, the entrance monuments, the native areas and trails, the East and West Parks, the Canyon9 Golf Course, etc and yes, the Rockery Walls outside of Sierra Canyon proper, whether you use them or not!

Committee Reports:

  • Budget & Finance – As an item of interest to homeowners, the committee advised they were looking at the SOA’s financial records to determine exactly how much the SOA has incurred on Rockery Wall failure related costs.
  • Facilities – The Committee would like to hold a Town Hall Meeting for the TCTC Gym Renovation Project, which was subsequently scheduled for Wednesday, April 10, from 5:30-6:30 pm at TCTC. Mark your calendar!

Old Business:

  • Legal Update – No discussion on this item. However, the SOA Attorney’s monthly “Legal Disclosure” memo disclosed that the Court, in entering their judgment, found in favor of the Plaintiffs (James) and Counter-Defendants (McCullough) against the SOA.

Editorial Note: For a complete summary on this litigation see SU Post of March 13th entitled “The Northgate Neighbors Verdict Is In”.

  • Rockery Wall Update – Update was extracted from the Padovan Consulting LLC’s monthly “SOA Engineering Update Report”.

Editorial Note:  For convenience a copy of this report may be accessed via the following link: “SOA Engineering Update, March 2019“.

  • Discussion on AGC Fee Reduction – No new discussion, still looking at fees versus AGC costs. Presumably to insure that whatever action is taken, a balance is maintained between collected fees and AGC costs.

New Business:

  • The Board approved acceptance of the following proposals:
    • Erosion/Drainage Repair along Twin Rock Ct. to Environmental Protections Services at $,4225.
    • Crack Sealing of Sierra Canyon Walking Trails to West Coast Paving Inc. at $7,160.
    • Gypsy Hill Rockery Wall Change Order (Shotcrete overages) to D.L. Wadsworth at not to exceed $154K
    • Underground Utility Work for TCTC Pool Project to pool Contractor at $5,280
    • Painting of Stairs and Slide for TCTC Pool Project to Fly Right LLC for $6,300.
  • The Board opened bids for the TCTC Gym Equipment Renovations. Three were received at $127K, $129K, and $121K. No decision made, deferred to Staff and Facilities Committee for review and recommendations.
  • Board approved to grant the Greens at Town Center Developer temporary use of six parking spaces within the TCTC parking lot for equipment and material storage. Developer responsible for repair of any damages.
  • Board approved the Access Gate Operations Policy and Sierra Canyon Assessment Collection Box Agreement.

Editorial Note: Copies of these documents were made available in the SU Post of March 25th entitled “March 27th SOA BOD Meeting Update”.

  • Board will move forward with the formation of an “Ad-Hoc Committee for SGCC Equipment Repair”. Committee to consist of Board members Tom Fitzgerald and Frank Leto. A stated objective is to reach an agreement as to who is responsible for what repairs given the shared facilities.

Editorial Note: SU contends that no subsequent agreement between SOA and SGCC Board Members is pertinent given the provisions of the Water Facilities Agreement between the two parties. See SU Posts of March 12th entitled “SOA and SGCC Water Facilities Agreement” and March 11th entitled “Golf Course Water Supply System Report” for details on this subject.

  • The SOA Attorney, although in attendance at the meeting, did not specifically address the alleged violations of NRS Statutes as submitted by homeowner Steve Guderian. Rather, he advised that they are taking them under advisement and will provide a legal response later.

Rockery Wall Litigation Update (4)

It has been nearly five months since this website published an update (i.e., post of “November 7, 2018 entitledRockery Wall Litigation Update (3)) on the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) lawsuit against the Somersett Development Company et. al. What has transpired since then? A review of the Court documents reveal that, aside from numerous procedural entries, the only significant entries pertain to the three items summarized below. For readers who want to delve into the details, links to the relevant docket entries are provided (just click on the docket subject in blue font and quotes):

Motion by the SOA to Strike Defendant Defenses

On January 17, 2019, the SOA’s Attorney filed with the Court a “Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses Relating to Statutes of Limitations and Repose”, along with eighteen pages of supporting information (exhibits excluded). The SOA claims that the six year statue of limitations and repose period starts from the time the Developer turned control of the Association (i.e., on January 4, 2013) over to the Homeowners and not when Rockery Wall construction was completed, which is within the six-year period. Hence this defense is not valid.

Opposition to SOA’s Motion to Strike

On March 26, 2019, the Defendants filed with the Court the “Defendants’ Opposition to Somersett Owners Association’s Motion to Strike”, which opposed the SOA’s motion to strike the Defendant’s statutes of limitations and repose defense.  In a ten-page response, the Defendants cited their arguments against the SOA motion.

Motion for Summary Judgment

On March 26, 2019, the Defendants filed with the Court a “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement”, basically stating that the SOA cannot prove it brought its claim for damages within six years after substantial completion of the Rockery Walls. Therefore, the move for a summary judgement is justified. Fourteen pages of supporting information for the motion was submitted.

The above referenced documents primarily relate to arguments pro and con on the applicability of the six-year statutes of limitations and repose, and as such make Interesting reading.

The Jury Trial is still scheduled for February 3, 2020

 

 

 

 

Walk To End Alzheimer’s Benefit

The following submitted by Nancy Chontos, Sierra Canyon Homeowner

 

I’m participating in Walk to End Alzheimer’s® because I’m committed to raising awareness and funds for Alzheimer’s care, support, and research. I’m leading the way to Alzheimer’s first survivor — but I need your help!

My mother has this terrible disease (please read my story on my personal page), and I have the variant gene, as well. We must find a cure for Alzheimer’s!!!

Will you help me reach my fundraising goal of $2,500 by making a donation today? Please visit my personal fundraising page by clicking on the link below to make a secure, online donation or write a check.* All donations benefit the Alzheimer’s Association — and every dollar makes a difference in this fight.

Together, we can end Alzheimer’s disease!

http://act.alz.org/goto/nancychontos

Editors Note:  Information on the nationwide “Walk to End Alzheimer’s” initiative may found by scrolling down to the bottom of Nancy’s personal page and accessing the clickable links.  The local walk will take place in Sparks, details of which are available via the following link”  2019 Walk to End Alzheimer’s – Reno/Sparks, NV  –  Saturday, September 21, 2019

 

March 27th SOA BOD Meeting Update

The previously published Agenda for the March 27th SOA BOD Meeting has been updated to include a few more items. The BOD Meeting Packet supporting the Meeting is also now available on the SOA website at http://www.somersett.net under the SOA/Committees & Meetings tab. The revised Meeting Agenda may be accessed by clicking on the following:

March 27th Final BOD Meeting Agenda

Three New Business Agenda items were added as follows:

  • Change Order for Gypsy Hill Rockery Wall Repair – $154K to cover shotcrete estimate overages, bringing the project total to approximately $1.6M (excluding any more change orders!)
  • Change Order for Utiliy Conflict at Pool Project – No details were available in the Board Meeting Packet.
  • Ad-HOC Commmittee for SGCC Equipment Repair – This agenda item most likely relates to the report prepared by Padovan Consulting on the condition of SOA and SGCC golf course irrigation system components and recommendaions for both short and long term maintenance/replacement. See previous Posts of March 11th “Golf Course Water Supply Report” and March 12th “SOA and SGCC Water Facilities Agreement” for details on this subject. The question is why a discussion on the formation of a Ad-Hoc Committee? As equipment maintenance responsibilities are clearly identified in a binding Water Facilities Agreement between the SOA and the SGCC, making it a legal issue, not a discussion or compromise on who does what, rather a demand that the SGCC live up to their responsibilities.

Comments on other Agenda items follow:

  • Revised Committee Charters – Committee charter revisions were approved at a previous BOD Meeting, with no indication in the Board Meeting Packet as to what Charters this Agenda item pertains to. Perhaps related to the Agenda item on “AGC Fee Reduction” or the ongoing controversy between the SOA’s AGC and the SCA’s ARC; and/or the Agenda Item on “Allegations of NRS Violations”, which pertain to the Community Standards Committee.
  • Easement Access for Greens at Town C enter – To support this Agenda item a plot plan of the Greens at Town Center was included in the Board Meeting Packet. For those not familiar with this project, which is to be constructed adjacent to TCTC parking lot and Canyon9 Hole 1 and will consist of 10 residences, a copy of the plot plan may be accessed via the following link:   The Greens at Town Center.
  • Access Gate Operations Policy – Proposed revision to the Gate Operations Policy for homeowners living in a gated community. The proposed revision may be accessed via the following link:   Access Gate Operations Policy
  • Sierra Canyon Assessment Collection Box – An agreement between the SOA and the SCA for installation of a lock box in Aspen Lodge for SOA assessment payments. A copy of this agreement may be accessed via the following link: SOA Assessment Lockbox Agreement

Resident Concerns – The Cliffs

By now, all Somersett property owners should be in receipt of the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) letter “Resident Concerns – The Cliffs”, which was apparently generated in response to “all of the Somersett residents who have communicated their concerns to the Board of Directors regarding ‘The Cliffs’ by Toll Brothers”.

This is basically a “feel good” letter in which the SOA BOD wants to make clear that “While we take an active interest in the outcome of the development, it is not our role or right within our capacity to manage the design and construction of this development”. That is, Toll Brothers is responsible to construct the development in accordance with approved plans, applicable codes, errosion control measures, slope revegetation, water polution, enviornmental protection, etc., and to have faith that the City of Reno and involved regulatory agencies will diligently perform their oversight and inspection responsibilities. That aside, the SOA also has some inspection rights prior to common area turnover and to require corrective action where needed.

Given the particular concern over hillside aesthetics and stabilization, the SOA has pledged to stay in close touch and be proactive with the City of Reno and regulatory agencies throught the construction process. This “….to insure that the future facilities to be maintained by the Somersett Owners Association are completed in a manner that is functional, can be reasonably maintained and is aesthetically pleasing ….”. Also, to keep Somersett residents informed on ongoing discussions and actions.

At the February SOA Board Meeting, in addressing the subject letter, the Board President encouraged concerned homeowners to “stay involved” and , unless this writer misunderstood, that the letter would address how this could be accomplished, which it did not. However, it did do a credible job of summarizing all the “hoops” the developer must jump through for approved project completion. Hopefully, this will allieviate many of the fears that have been raised by Somersett residents.

The subject letter may be accessed via the following link:   “Resident Concerns – The Cliffs

 

NRS 116 Alleged Violation Letter to SOA BOD

SU’s previous Post of “March 27th SOA Board Meeting” addressed an agenda item pertaining to alleged violations of NRS Chapter 116 Statutes. These alleged violations were brought forth by Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Member Steve Guderian (i.e., as a concerned homeowner and not in his capacilty as the Sierra Canyon Association Board President). Mr. Guderian’s allegations deal with the SOA Community Standards Committee (CSC) and perceived conflicts of interest between SOA Board Member Jason Roland and CSC Member Tiffany Roland (his spouse). Mr. Guderians letter to the SOA Board (published with permission of Mr. Guderian) may be accessed via the link below. In addition, Mr. Guderian offers the following as an introduction:

“As home owner in Somersett I believe that the rights of all home owners to fair proceedings within the community is of paramount importance. In the Janurary SOA BOD meeting when I heard who the CSC committee members were, and what their charter said, I could not allow the violations I believe are occurring to continue. So, the attached letter is the first step I have to go through in order to file a complaint/intervention with the Nevada Real Estate Division, the Ombudsman. In my mind the only way the current situation with respect to the CSC can be rectified is a complete do over. Simply put, you cannot have board members making a decision and/or being a part of a sanction or a fine and then being involved in the appeal process too.

Steve Guderian
SOA Home Owner”

Link:         Alleged Violation of NRS 116.3103, NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.31084 & NRS 116.31085

March 27th SOA Board Meeting

The Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) open meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 27th, 2019 at 5:30 PM at The Club at Town Center (TCTC) Sports Court. The meeting agenda may be accessed by clicking on the following link:

March 27th SOA BOD Meeting Agenda

The preceeding is listed as a “Draft”, and based on past practice, an updated agenda will most likely be in the offing between now and the Board meeting. Also, the BOD Meeting Packet, which contains details associated with agenda items was not available at the time of this posting, which will be updated when and if a new agenda is released and/or the BOD Meeting Packet is made available. In the interim, some comments on agenda items follow:

Old Business:

6.a Legal Updates – The only significant occurance since the previous BOD meeting is the Washoe County District Court ruling on the lawsuit between Herbert and Linda James (also co-claimants Allen and Sandra McCulloch) and the SOA, wherein the Court rulled in favor of the Jameses/McCullochs over the SOA. See previous post of March 13th entitled “The Northgate Neighbors Verdict Is In!”, for a recap on this litigation.

6.b Discussion on AGC Fee Reduction – At the last BOD meeting the Board was going to look at the possibility of fee reductions and approval process for simple AGC applications not requiring permits. Perhaps recommendations will be presented?

New Business:

7.j  Allegation of Violations of NRS 116.3103,31031,31084,& 31085 – Nevada Revised Statute Chapter 116 provides the governing law for Common-Interest Ownership Communities. If an individual (aggrieved person) is of the opinion that the Board of Directors or Community Management of a Homeowners Association (respondent) is in violation of a NRS 116 Statute, the aggrieved person may seek relief via the filing of an affidavit with the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED). However, before submitting the affidavit, the aggrieved person must first notify the respondent of the alleged violation, incurred damages and proposed corrective actions. This to allow the respondent time to address. If the respondent does not agree with the allegations and efforts to resolve the issue have failed, the aggrieved individual may then submit the affidavit to the NRED, who will refer it to the Ombudsman for investigation and resolution. The aggrieved person may also request that the alleged violation be placed on the agenda for the next BOD meeting. Hence, the most probable cause for this agenda item. Details associated with the alleged violations were not available at the time of this posting, However, the subject titles of the referred statutes are as follows:

  • NRS 116.3103 “Power of executive board to act on behalf of association; members and officers are fiduciaries; duty of care; application of business-judgment rule and conflict of interest rules; limitations on power”.
  • NRS 116.31031 “Power of executive board to impose fines and other sanctions for violations of governing documents; limitations; procedural requirements; continuing violations; collection of past due fines; statement of balance owed”.
  • NRS 116 31084 “Voting by member of executive board; disclosures; abstention from voting on certain matters”.
  • NRS 116.31085 “Right of units’ owners to speak at certain meetings; limitations on right; limitations on power of executive board to meet in executive session; procedure governing hearings on alleged violations; requirements concerning minutes of certain meetings”.

As usual, this posting will be updated if and when the BOD Meeting Agenda is updated, and the associated BOD Meeting Packet is made available.

 

The “Northgate Neighbors” Verdict Is In!

In a court hearing on March 12th, the Washoe County District Court issued their final ruling on the lawsuit (i.e. Case No. CV16-00220) between Herbert and Linda James (also co-claimants Allen and Sandra McCulloch) and the Somersett Owners Association (SOA). The result being that the Court ruled in favor of the Jameses and McCullochs over the SOA. In its ruling, the Court found that former Northgate Golf Course property purchased by the Jameses and McCullochs (adjacent to their Somersett property) was not subject to the Somersett CC&R’s and that the SOA could not prevent access based on such.

A complete transcript of the ruling may be accessed via the following link: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment

This litigation has roots going back to 2011, and has been very costly to the SOA in legal expenses. For the referenced case, SOA legal fees from 2015 through 2018 totaled approximately $283K. This does not include 2019 YTD fees, legal fees prior to 2015, or related ancillary fees. Therefore, the total cost to Somersett owners pertaining to this issue will be far in excess of $300K. So what was this litigation all about? Perhaps a little history is in order:

In 1985, RJB Development Company (RJB) deeded property to Washoe County to develop the Northgate Golf Course, which was operated by the Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority (RSCVA). RSCVA operated the course until 2009 when it became more of a liability than an asset. When RSCVA subsequently closed the golf course, a property deed restriction required that the land revert back to RJB. For the next three years, the Reno City Council and a group of surrounding residential property owners (spearheaded by Somersett “Northgate Neighbor” owners) worked to persuade RJB to allow time to raise the funds to purchase the property for use as a park and open space (i.e., to preclude sale for residential or commercial development). After months of negotiations, the City reached a deal to purchase the property from RJB.. To fund the project, the City formed a Special Assessment District (after a successful petition by more than two-thirds of the adjacent property owners) which would generate $1.2 million. Washoe County and the City of Reno came up with another $1.2 million. However, this still left a shortfall in funding to purchase the entire Northgate property. To make up this shortfall, several Somersett owners along Whisper Rock (i.e., the “Northgate Neighbors”) entered into an agreement with RJB to purchase some of the Northgate property adjacent to their existing Somersett lots. Thus facilitating purchase of the remaining land by the City of Reno, which now comprises the Sierra Vista Park. (click here for park link)

Although they had the opportunity, the Somersett Development Company (SDC), under Blake Smith, who controlled the SOA Board at the time of the acquisitions, did not participate in the Special Assessment District, did not attempt to purchase any of the Northgate property, nor object to such purchase by the “Northgate Neighbors”. However, subsequent to their purchases, the SOA notified the Northgate owners that they were in violation of the SOA’s CC&R’s by accessing their adjacent Northgate property from their Somersett property (i.e., backyards) and therefore, were subject to fines. They also opined that the acquired Northgate property required annexation into Somersett proper and that the combined property was subject to the SOA CC&R’s. Ostensibly to protect Somersett home values due to potential improper use of the land. This in spite of the Northgate owners having adopted their own set of CC&R’s to protect against improper use.  A series of negotiations between the parties went nowhere. Hence, the necessary hiring of attorneys to resolve the issue.

One can perhaps understand SDC wanting to annex the property into the SOA and possibly extending their control of the SOA Board, which ended in November 2012. However, it is difficult to reason why in the following six years, subsequent SOA Boards felt it necessary to take up the cause and continue it to the present day.

What nonsense! It was this same homeowner group that championed the cause and provided funding for the defunct Northgate Golf Course property being purchased by the City for open space and a public park. Bottom line, the SOA BOD’s should have been grateful to the homeowners who spent time and money to convert this land to a park rather than harassing them about violating the Somersett CC&R’s and subjecting them to fines. A lack of proper judgement and common sense perhaps?
.
For additional background, a rolling chronology of litigation events, is contained in the SOA Attorney’s monthly “Legal Disclosure” letters to the SOA Board. The latest of which is dated February 19th 2019, and may be accessed via the following link:  February 19, 2019 legal Disclosure.

Per the Legal Disclosure letters , by the end of 2017, the SOA had entered into settlement agreements with most of the “Northgate Neighbors”, leaving only two owners (James and McCullough) as outstanding litigants. For those interested, an example of the settlement agreement, may be accessed via the following link:  SOA Lot Expansion and Easement Agreement.

Under the Lot Expansion and Easement Agreement, the affected owners agreed to the application of the SOA CC&R’s and other Association Governing Documents to their acquired Northgate property. This in exchange for some CC&R variances and Aesthetics Guideline Committee (AGC) concessions. However, none of this applies in the James/McCulloch case, wherein the Court has ruled that the SOA has no jurisdiction over their acquired Northgate properties.

Hopefully, the March 12 Court ruling finally brings closure to this multi-year saga and the expenditure of SOA funds, or will the SOA still be liable for the James’s and McCulloch’s legal fees?

 

 

SOA and SGCC Water Facilities Agreement

As a supplement to the previous post entitled “Golf Course Water Supply System Report”, and for those who are interested in the details of the Water Facilities Agreement between the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) and the Somersett Golf & Country Club (SGCC), it may be accessed via the following link:

Water Facilities Agreement.

In accessing the Agreement, particular attention should be paid to Section 3 “Operation of Water Facilities”, Section 4 “Maintenance of Water Facilities: Cost Allocation”, Section 5 “Cost Allocation for Water Facilities” and Exhibit E “Water Facilities”. These Sections clearly describe what constitutes the Canyon9 and SGCC golf course water facilities and who is responsible for what.

Per the Agreement, it will become obvious that the vast majority of the costs for operating and maintaining the water facilities currently resides with the SGCC. However, to what extent they will be willing to bear the costs as estimated in the previous posted Canyon9 & SGCC Water Supply Infrastructure Review report remains to be seen.

If indeed the maintenance and repair costs estimated in the report are accurate and required, one would hope that the SOA Board would not support the SGCC “dipping in the SOA money well” to cover costs. Perhaps if they are short of available funds, SGCC equity member assessments would be in order.

SGCC & Canyon9 Water Supply System Report

At the February SOA Board meeting is was revealed that a report (prepared by Padovan Consulting, LLC) on the condition of Pump Station components supplying water to the Canyon9 and SGCC Irrigation Syctems had been completed. The report contained recommendions for both short and long-term repairs/maintenance of the Pump Station components along with associated cost estimates. The Board advised that a meeting with the SGCC is being scheduled to discuss the report and action plans. A copy of the report may be accessed via the following link: Canyon9 & SGCC Water Supply Infrastructure Review

To help understand the content of the report, the following diagram of the water supply system is provided:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The report identifies specific issues with Pump Station components and provides the following estimates for recommended short term and long term repair/replacement costs:

  • Truckee River Pump Station – $31K short term, $35K long term
  • Canyon9 Pump Station – $24K short term, $95K long term
  • SGCC Hole 5 Pump Station (Main) – $15K short term, $124K long term
  • Sierra Canyon Well 5 – $93K long term or $400K if a new drilled well is required.
  • Clubhouse Well – Nothing estimated short or long term

The report concludes with the following statement:

“This concludes the review of the various water supply pump systems and wells. Overall the system is at the age where costly upgrades will be needed in the 5 year time frame if the water supply system is to be managed responsibly. These costs could exceed present dy costs of $700,000 based on the above information. The information presented here is meant for planning purposes to better understand the overall condition of the water supply system and likely associated costs.”

What the report does not address is where the cost liabilities lie. Since the vast majority of the total water supply is for SGCC course irrigation, it is fair to assume that the majority of the maintenance, repair and replacement  costs would be the responsibility of the SGCC. This is further upheld by Exhibit D “Water Facilities Agreement” of 2014 SGCC Purchase Agreement. The Water Facilities Agreement basically states that during the 4 year warranty period following commencement of the Agreement, The SGCC was responsible for all maintenance, repair and associated costs for the entire water supply system. However, the warranty period expired in December 2018. After the warranty period, the Water Facilities Agreement establishes that maintenance and repair costs for the aforementioned Pump Stations will be the responsibility of the following:

  • Truckee River Pump Station – Shared between the SOA and the SGCC based on water usage.
  • Canyon9 Pump Station – Split between SOA for the Canyon9 irrigation system and SGCC for the SGCC Hole 5 Pond water supply system
  • SGCC Hole 5 Pump Station (Main) – SGCC
  • Well 5 and Clubhouse Well – SGCC

Given past experience with the SGCC living up (or perhaps not living up) to its responsibilities under the Purchase Agreement, it will be interesting to see how the discussions proceed.