Somersett Golf & Country Club 2018 Financial Summary

The following table represents a summary of the Somersett Golf & Country Club’s (SGCC) revenue and expense data for the years following turnover from the Somersett Developer to its Equity Members. The table has been updated to include the 2018 financials. All financial data contained in the following table are derived from the SGCC’s IRS Form 990’s, which require submittal by May 15th of the following year and become available for public inspection. The SOA Revenue Column represent monies provided to the SGCC from Somersett Owners Association (SOA) funds as indicated by the corresponding “Notes”. Given the SOA’s investment and liabilities associated with the Real Property Purchase Agreement (see Note 5), the SGC’s financial health may be of interest to many Association members.











* Full proprietary membership with voting rights, does not include non-permanent provisional or preview memberships

Table Notes:

  1. In the Fall of 2010, the Somersett Development Company negotiated early turnover of the SGCC to its Equity Members via Member majority vote.
  2. First year in which the SGCC was run entirely by Equity Members.
  3. In late 2011, the Developer controlled SOA Board voted to divert $15/month of homeowner assessments to the SGCC via a “Lease Agreement” in exchange for some SGCC access amenities. Agreement was to run for three years starting in January 2012 with optional 3 and 4-year renewal periods. The obvious purpose being to offset SGCC operating losses.
  4. SOA Revenue column represents the revenue the SGCC derived in years 2012, 2013 and 2014 from the SOA under the Lease Agreement described in Note 3 above. 2014 was the last year under this agreement after being declared improper by the Nevada Real Estate Board.
  5. As a replacement for the aforementioned Lease Agreement, in late 2014, a SGCC Real Property Purchase Agreement was approved by SOA owner majority vote. Under this agreement, the SOA purchased the SGCC land and water rights for $2,750,000 with a subsequent leaseback of the land and water rights to the SGCC at a base rate of $1000/year (subject to escalation) plus a fixed rent amount of $1200/year. Lease term is for 50 years with two SGCC optional 20-year renewal periods. SOA purchase funds were obtained via bank loan paid for via homeowner assessments.
  6. The SGCC 2015 negative revenue less expense amount was primarily due to the $2,750.000 sale price income (see Note 5) minus a reported sales expense (asset loss) of $4,294,781.

For those interested in the details associated with the listed 2018 revenues and expenses, the SGCC’s complete 2018 Form 990 may be accessed via the following link:

SGCC 2018 Form 990


  1. Although far short of the 450 equity member goal, the SGCC continues to increase its equity membership, which is now at 293 or up 37 from the previous year.
  2. The SunSett Grille appears to be doing much better as the SGCC’s Food & Beverage revenue is up $330K over 2017. If you haven’t already been there, give it a try.
  3. The SGCC’s $313K in revenue derived from the SOA via the Canyon9 maintenance contract was not in effect for 2018. The contract for 2018 and 2019 was awarded to Reno Green on a cost basis. It is unclear how this may have contributed to the increase in the 2018 negative revenue less expense amount.
  4. Yet to be determined is SGCC’s financial liability for the Rockery Wall failures on property leased from the SOA by the SGCC under the 2014 Real Property Purchase Agreement (i.e., the SGCC Hole 5 hillside failures). For expeditious reasons, required repairs were initiated and paid for by the SOA. However, the SOA contends that the SGCC is liable for these repairs under the Purchase Agreement’s Warranty and Property Maintenance Provisions. Although started, legal action was placed on hold until June 30th, 2019 by a mutually agreed upon “Tolling Agreement”, under which the SGCC is paying the SOA $500/month to help offset loan interest fees. It is assumed that the Tolling Agreement was put in place pending results of the ongoing Chapter 40 lawsuit against the Somersett Development Company et. al. However, given that June 30th is just around the corner, and the Chapter 40 lawsuit is still unresolved, will the Tolling Agreement be extended, or will the SOA now proceed with legal action against the SGCC?
  5. Also, to be determined is the SGCC’s future liabilities associated with required repair/replacement of the Canyon9 and SGCC Water Supply System components, which have been estimated as high as $700K over the next five years. The SGCC’s responsibilities in this area are fully defined under the Waiter Facilities Agreement between the SOA and the SGCC. Given that the vast majority of the total water supply is for SGCC course irrigation, the majority of the repair and replacement costs will become the responsibility of the SGCC. This issue is currently under discussion between the two parties regarding liabilities and repair timing.

5 thoughts on “Somersett Golf & Country Club 2018 Financial Summary

  1. My only hope is that us homeowners are not asked for more money for golf course issues, particularly we who are in Sierra Canyon. Some Sierra Canyon homeowners may or not be members of the Club. I, for one, do not use the golf course at all. Why don’t they make it, at least, semi-public. Members would always have first dibs on tee times, etc., but I’m sure there are a bunch of golfers out there who would love to play the course for a hefty fee. Maybe I’m all wrong, I just don’t want to have to Pay anymore monthly dues than I’m already paying.

  2. Dear Seirragordy: Your comments are timely, well taken and reasonable.

    Before moving to Reno, my husband and I lived in California for 39 yrs. It is normal, well known and acceptable in every community within CA and even in Arrowcreek, that if you wanted to become a member of an “EXCLUSIVE COUNTRY CLUB”, you would be expected to pay your fair share by way of an entry fee. In California in the town of Saratoga, for example, the entry fee 20 yrs. ago was $100,000 non-refundable. If you didn’t want to pay that, you didn’t become a member. In addition there were monthly fees you paid for being a member. You were also expected to pay for unusual expenses that could crop up. No SOA would bail out the Country Club for any expenses. Following your contribution, you would be expected to pay for all expenses incurred for that exclusivity.

    20 yrs. ago, there was a sale in Arrowcreek wherein you could buy a membership for just $30,000. This fee would not be refundable if you chose to end your membership. Many folks who moved to Reno from CA found this to be a bargain.

    Now lets look at the history of The Somersett Golf and Country Club. Not only have the majority of members not paid any initial fees for their membership but, due to the recent recession, many were permitted to join for very low monthly dues, unheard of in California. At that time, if every member had contributed just a little over $8,900, (a very low sum for any private club), the SOA would not have this crushing debt to repay.

    In addition, it is my understanding that currently, there are two SOA Board members who are also members of the SGCC. They should recuse themselves from any vote pertaining to the SGCC. They have a fiduciary duty to all Owners and need to remain unbiased.

  3. Let’s see now, currently the SGCC is selling equity memberships for $2,500 on a payment plan and $400/mo for the first year, a bargain considering what the SGCC has to offer with regard to facilities. Why not charge more? Who knows what their strategy or needs are. Are they strapped for cash as some fear, and therefore, the SOA will be left with paying for their share of the Hole 5 Rockery Wall repairs, which have been estimated in the $500K range? Per Ms. Wright’s comment about Country Club members paying their own way, how would that relate to a $500K debt? Given the approximately 300 SGCC equity members this would equate to a $1,666 assessment per member. Not a hell of a lot of difference from the $1200 assessment all Somersett owners are now paying. Time for the SGCC to step up to the bar!

  4. I would say that it is way past time for the elitist SGC members to pay their own way. Less than 10% of our community are members, and yet they want everyone else to support their hobby..How long will it be before HOA members get fed up with assessments to support “loans” to the SGC?

  5. On another aspect of the same subject, the BOD has 2 SGC members. Is there a quorum with both of them recusing themselves? If not, there is a need for more BOD members, to avoid this OBVIOUS conflict of interest. The BOD needs to maintain its fiduciary duty to the homeowners, not to the SGC.

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