October 16th SOA BOD Meeting Agenda Update

Following is the Final Agenda for tomorrow’s Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting at The Club at Town Center (TCTC). The only significant change from that previously published is the addition of a Strategic Planning Committee Report.

October 16th BOD Meeting Agenda – Final

Agenda items that address topics that have been, and still are, the subject of controversy within the community are summarized below:

6.a. Legal Updates – Actually, is not what is to be discussed here, but what apparently will not be. The BOD Meeting Packet does not address the recent Court ruling for a Summary Judgement in favor of the Defendants in the SOA’s Rockery Wall lawsuit. This ruling basically states that the SOA’s lawsuit has no merit under the six-year statute of repose. This raises the following questions: 1) Will the SOA pursue any other legal proceedings? 2) What Defendant legal fees will the SOA be liable for? and 3) Will the SOA now terminate the Tolling Agreement with the SGCC and take legal action to recover the $700K in Rockery Wall repair the SOA believes they are liable for under the Land and Water Rights Purchase Agreement?

7.b. Boulders Landscape Improvements for Entrance & Roundabouts from Brightview  –  A $16.6K extra work proposal from Brightview for landscape improvements at the entrance to the Boulders and along Circle Stone, Standing Stone and Boulder Ridge Courts consisting of 103 plants, 5 trees, and 23 tons of DG and cobble.  Has this work been previously budgeted, or is it an unsolicited proposal from Brightview?

7.c.  Fall Tree Replacement Proposal from Brightview – A $24.3K extra work proposal from Brightview for installation of one hundred 15 gallon trees, primarily along the Somersett and Del Webb Parkways, plus an extra $21.5K for a 24″ boxed tree size. Same question as for item 7.c., has this work been previously budgeted or is it an unsolicited proposal from Brightview?  Also, how does this relate to the previous $20.5K Brightview proposal approved at the June BOD meeting for the replacement of 100 trees (200 trees total)?  Are items 7.b. and 7.c. really necessary at this time given the strained resources within the Common Area Budget?

7.g. Proposed String/Bare Bulb Lighting Policy – The issue here addresses the controversial use of String/Bistro lighting by some owners in their backyards that apparently other owners (as well as the SOA compliance officers) find annoying and/or in violation of some nebulous dark skies requirements. The proposed policy under discussion may be accessed via the following link:

Proposed String Lighting Policy

7.h. Various Canyon Nine Pump Repairs – The issue here stems from SOA and SGCC responsibilities under the Water Facilities Agreement, and whether or not the SGCC is living up to its responsibilities as the “Water Facilities Operating Manager” and funding their share of maintenance costs in a timely manner. Although the $45.7K repair estimate deals primarily with repairs to pump equipment within the SOA area of responsibility, some of the identified repair costs deal with SOA and SGCC “shared costs” equipment. Also, is the SGCC proceeding with needed repairs to their pump equipment as well?

7.j. & 7.k. 2020 General Common, TCTC, Town Square & Gates Budgets & Reserves. – The proposed SOA Operating and Reserve Budgets will most likely be approved under these Agenda items. The $13/month increase in the SOA Common Area monthly assessment has certainly elicited some negative response within the Community. Especially within Sierra Canyon, who owners are also looking at an additional increase in their own common area assessment. This meeting represents one’s last chance to address the Board (pro or con) in this regard.

7.m. Revised Compliance (Penalty and Fine Schedule) Policy – No changes in penalties or fines. Revision simply eliminates references to the Community Standards Committee, which was, amid some controversy, recently dissolved by the Board.

2 thoughts on “October 16th SOA BOD Meeting Agenda Update

  1. Now the suit is lost … the SGCC should immediately pay the $750K for their rockery wall repair.

    then the need to raise the dues will be negated …

    Logic:

    3176 homeowners are each paying $236 as their share of the Country Club Wall Repair.

    Raising the dues by $13 will net only $156 per homeowner/year … hence prompt payment by the Country Club will not only make the dues raise unnecessary … but will allow us to put $254,080 into the reserves, or pay down the $6 million loan we have by that amount…

  2. Agree Geoffrey. An unsecured loan for SGCC wall repairs should never have been made in the first place. If they won’t pay, then its time to foreclose per the lease terms.

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