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.

5 thoughts on “March 27th SOA Board Meeting Recap

  1. As most Somersett residents may or may not know the Somersett Golf and Country Club often referred to as SGCC operates the 18 hole private championship golf club within our community under a land lease back agreement between SGCC and our Somersett Home Owners Association, SOA, which purchased the land which most people still question as to why and how this could have happened a few years back. All Sierra Canyon homeowners belong to and pay monthly dues to SOA in addition to Sierra Canyon.
    After a study by Padovan Consulting LLC, a detailed report was generated and posted here on this website recently which clearly outlined how SGCC has failed to live up to the lease agreement to the tune of $700,000 to maintain the well pumps and related infrastructure that supply water to the golf course. Instead of calling for SGCC to immediately rectify the deteriorating situation and live up to the lease agreement the SOA board at the March 27 board meeting decided to form an Ad-Hoc committee to study ways to deflect as much of the costs back to Somersett residents before moving forward. Why would a landlord. SOA, work against itself to minimize their financial damages from their offending tenant, SGCC? Every dollar that the SOA board finds to shift those costs from SGCC to the SOA comes out of each and every homeowner’s pocket. Makes one wonder what is behind it all doesn’t it?
    This appears to be a clear violation of our board’s fiduciary responsibility to work in our best interests. For years there has been a perceived dark behind the scenes relationship between the SOA and the SGCC which is definitely not in the best interests of all residents of the Somersett and Sierra Canyon home owners. One only has to look back at Somersett buying the land and then leasing It back to SGCC, fronting them a $600K “loan” of SOA membership funds to repair the rock wall on their property with miniscule repayment so far and now this failure to hold them accountable for over $700K in maintenance costs which could ultimately cost all SOA residents another large special assessment bailout. Let’s see, $600K “loan” for rockwall repair, $700K for violation of lease agreement looks like $1.3M that SGCC owes the residents of SOA. Do they have the ability to repay? I dare not answer that question. What is going on between SOA and SGCC?

    It would behoove all Somersett and Sierra Canyon residents to pay attention, attend SOA board meetings, ask questions, demand answers, and then hold the SOA board accountable for their actions. Otherwise, expect to see many more sweetheart deals and special assessments to follow.

    1. You are correct.. residents must attend meetings and pay attention! There are SGCC members on our BOD who have conflicts of interest. I don’t see how they can execute their fiduciary duty in good faith, as more and more issues with the SGCC come up, and more and more requests for money. Why should the residents continue to pay for these assessments with the BOD not taking the Clubhouse as collateral?

    2. Why didn’t the SOA BOD seek collateral for the rock wall repair loan? SGCC has assets that could have been pledged. The BOD is not fulfilling its fiduciary duties.


    Dispute with the SGC. Committee to discuss how to make the SGC to live up to their legal obligations to maintain the Somersett waterworks…

    Please not another committee, this is a straightforward case for our lawyer. If they can’t pay to maintain the Somersett Waterworks, we should take ownership of their 5 acres in lieu of cash.

    I can’t speak for the other 3000 residents, but I personally don’t want have another special assessment to fix the water, without knowing that the SOA now owns the SGC property and can bring this into the common area.

    The SGC have put on hold paying us the $750K we paid to fix their rockery walls, under a tolling agreement up in June. The paltry interest they are paying the SOA on the loan agreement of $500,000, makes no business sense to me (that is why I was never a CFO, just a CTO). Roughly $230 of the 2019 Special Assessment of $1200 is to pay the SGC’s bills.

    Will the expense end when we can take over the CGC run it properly to pay for itself, or close it down. Maintaining the grassy links as just grassy areas with trails will be so less expensive … and we can sell off the water rights to reduce our debt!

    Anyone have a better idea???

  3. This message is just so amazing in so many ways. It’s so warped that it kind of makes me laugh.

    “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”

    When reading this all I could think was “holy crap”. The old saying of “do as I say, not as I do” comes to mind. Oh, and while you’re doing as we direct, could you please provide us with some signed checks so that we can pay for “special assements”, “water issues”, and other costs that are sure to arise. And bye the way, we do accept credit cards. Please just provide your name, number, and the code on the back of your card. And remember, we’re here to help ………………….. Yea Right ! “MSCGA”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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