SGCC Related Documents – Get the Facts

There has been a lot of discourse on the Somersett NextDoor website, some unfortunately nasty, on the relationship between the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) and the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC), particularly with regard to the Rockery Wall and Water Facilities issues, and whether or not the SOA should forgive and/or assume the cost for perceived SGCC liabilities . Some of the discourse accuses those with opposite viewpoints of spreading misinformation, telling lies and factual incorrectness, with some directed at this website.

Does SU publish editorial opinions, yes, and all readers have the opportunity to respond accordingly. However, we take pride in also publishing the facts, with appropriate document references, that form the basis for our opinions. Although these documents have been previously published, following is a listing, with links, of documents that pertain to this issue. (also available under the References Tab). We ask all readers, who have an interest in truthful representation, to read them and make up their own minds as to the facts and their implications.

  1. August 2014 SGCC Purchase Agreement (Executed)– This was the Agreement entered into between the two parties. It identifies all the parameters and responsibilities of the two parties pertaining to the SOA’s purchase of the SGCC’s Land, Water Facilities and Water Rights and the subsequent leaseback of these assets to the SGCC.
  2. August 2014 Water Facilities Agreement – Part of the Purchase and Lease Agreement. It establishes responsibilities for the operation and maintenance of the Water Facilities and Water Rights that provide the irrigation sources for both the SGCC and SOA Canyon 9 golf courses.
  3. October 2016 Attorney Letter to SGCC on Lease Viloations – Letter advising the SGCC of certain Lease Agreement violations, particularly with regard to the Water Facilities.
  4. October 2017 Attorney Letter to SGCC – Letter advising the SGCC on their liability for the Rockery Wall failure on SGCC leased land.
  5. November 2017 SOA Attorney Letter to SGCC– Letter advising the SGCC that violation notices contained in the October 2017 letter would be placed on hold pending release of an engineering report on failure assessment. Also, that the SOA would consider paying for damages provided the SGCC will reimburse the SOA on “mutually agreed terms”.
  6. January 2018 CME Rockery Wall Preliminary Failure Investigation Report – The engineering report referenced in the November 2017 Attorney letter, which investigated the causes of failure for the Trail Ridge Court (Hole 5) Rockery Walls.
  7. July 2018 SGCC Tolling Agreement – Basically an agreement to put Rockery Wall litigation hold pending the outcome of the SOA’s lawsuit against the Somersett Development Company et. al.
  8. January 2019 Canyon9 & SGCC Water Supply Infrastructure Review – Report by SOA Consulting Engineer on inspection of the Water Facilities identifying maintenance issues and cost estimates.
  9. June 2019 First Amendment to Tolling Agreement – Extended the Tolling date thru December 2019
  10. July 2019 Golf Course Water Supply Infastructure – Maintenance Cost Summary – Spreadsheet generated by the SGCC & SOA Water Management Advisory Committee identifying Water Supply System components, near and long term maintenance requirements, cost estimates and responsible parties (i.e., the SOA or SGCC).

As mentioned above, SU has been accused of telling lies and incorrectly stating the facts. Naturally SU takes umbrage to these accusations and invites anyone to identify where this has occurred.

As always, this website is open to all for commenting, pro or con, on SU website postings and comments, hopefully in a civil manner.

10 thoughts on “SGCC Related Documents – Get the Facts

  1. For my wife and myself we really appreciate the effort SU puts in the notices and the honesty and unbiased opinions. We believe there are several issues that definately are conflicts of interest between SGCC and the SOA.
    Please keep up the good work!

  2. No doubt Somersett United (SU) is by far the very best online site for owners/association members to keep informed about association business matters. It even surpasses the “official site” and board meetings themselves.

    Too bad every owner/association member is not aware of it. Ask your friends and neighbors to become followers. No junk mail ever and email addresses are neither sold nor published.

    Extra too bad that association board members and golf club board members seldom express non-confidential comments/facts on SU. What is the difference between a Somersett board member meeting with a handful of owners and saying things in person and not posting them here? Certainly would reach a wider audience! No better way to correct rumors and get the truth out to a large number of dues paying owners/association members.

    Sad that more owners come to SU than go to board/committee meetings.

    1. here is a perfect example. joe bower doe even live in somersett any longer so why is he posting anything related to this community.

      1. Still a dues paying SOA member thereby helping to support the irksome private golf course and other Association trials and tribulations.

        How many owners know that part of their dues to the Somersett Association goes to pay off the principle and interest of the loan taken out by Somersett to purchase SGCC’s Land, Water Facilities, and Water Rights (subsequently leased back to the private golf Club)? Thus they are paying to support the Club whether a member of it or not.

  3. When looking at these comments all I see are the Lawyers rubbing their hands together and saying, I love it ! Sure do love all these issues at Somersett that keeps our earning way up. Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t Somersett just buy the total golf course. We seem to already own a large amount of it. Once Somersett owns it, fire the current Golf Course Management, and bring in a management team that will run it in a profitable manner. If this means changing it to a Semi-Private or Public status, so be it. If the Board of Directors won’t go along, recall the bunch of them. They don’t appear to be doing their jobs, which is to represent the home owners. It should be noted that a vast majority really likes the golf course. They just don’t want to subsidize it for the private use of others.

    1. Don – Yes it certainly appears that the SOA is becoming a cash cow for Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, the SOA Attorneys!

  4. I. It is NOT you stating the facts that bother me. I think you are doing better on this. It is the fact that you state many thing as anonymous that irritate me. I feel if you state the facts then you should interpret these and state your opinion . That is leading people to believe something they may not want to believe. If Somersett United is so unbiased and neutral then tell me why you do not state clearly WHO is the author of these articles? Articles submitted under SU without a name will Never be credible to me.

    A Somersett resident not afraid to sign her name

    1. Reply to Sharon – Respectively, you keep beating a dead horse here! As I have stated in the past, SU is a blog site, the Editor and Webmaster is and has been clearly identified on the SU About page as myself. SU Posts are blog articles for anyone to comment on. No need to sign my name to these, so your comment on anonymity does not apply here.

      Jim Haar

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