A Look Back at 2019

Following is a “Look-Back” at some of the more important issues/events encountered by Somersett Owners in 2019. However, what is more important now is to look forward to 2020 and bring closure to outstanding 2019 issues.

 

SOA Board of Directors:

  • Membership – Two new SOA Board members (Craig Hanson and Simon Baker) were elected to serve two year terms (2020 & 2021). They replaced Board members Jason Roland and Frank Leto. They join incumbants Tom Fitzgerald, Terry Retter and Joe Strout. Officers for 2020 are as follows: Tom Fitzgerald – President, Simon Baker – Treasurer, Terry Retter – Secretary, Craig Hanson & Joe Strout – Vice Presidents.
  • Recusals – Two of the Current Board members (Retter & Strout) are also SGCC equity members. Given the SOA’s current issues with the SGCC, 2019 saw many concerns expressed by SOA owners regarding Board actions relating to the SGCC and whether or not recusals on voting will be appropriately invoked.

Common Area:

  • Assessments – As we all are painfully aware, a $1200 special assessment for 2019 was levied against all Somersett unit owners. This to off-set costs associated with the Rockery Wall faiure repairs. Although no additional special assessment is planned for 2020, the BOD did vote to increase the monthly assessment for the Somersett Common Area from $92/mo to $105/month. This to replace 2019 depleted operating cash and reserve funds. The Club at Town Center (TCTC) and Private Gates & Streets assessments for 2020 will remain unchanged at $89/month and $54/month respectively.
  • Rockery Wall Repairs – Approximately $1.7M in contracts was awarded to contractors for repairs to the Gypsy Hill Rockery Wall, all of which have been completed. Inspection and movement monitoring of other suspect walls continued throughout 2019 with no identified issues or necessary repairs.
  • Landscape Maintenance – 2019 issued in a new contractor (BrightView) for maintenance of the Somersett Common Areas, replacing Reno Green. Although not the low bidder at $1.44M, when considering other cost factors and expertise, BrightView was the prefered choice. Their 2019 performance has been well accepted.
  • Somersett Parkway Crosswalks – As a pedestrian  safety issue, two manually activated electric signs were installed on the Somersett Parkway. One at the crosswalk between the Town Center and the East Park, and the other at Willow Ranch Road. A speed warning electric sign was also installed on Evening Rock Trail coming down the hill from the Boulders.
  • Somersett West Park – Construction on the Park by the City was started in 2019. Park to include a dog park (large and small), community garden, childrens play area and common space. A Community Garden Committee consisting of five Somersett Owners was apponted at the December 2019 Board meeting.
  • Fuel Fire Reduction – Remediation work was performed throughout 2019 and will continue into 2020.

The Club at Town Center:

  • Pool – The TCTC pool upgrade (a $500K project), which included relocation and construction of a new landing pool for the kids slide, was completed in time for the 2019 swim season.
  • Gym Equipment – Renovation/replacement of TCTC’s gym equipment was accomplished at a price of $121K.

Aesthetic Guidelines Committee (AGC):

  • AGC Committee – The AGC was restructured with the elimination of the owner position and one professional position. Committee now consists of five individuals consisting of two SOA Board Members, a Civil Engineer, a Buiding Architect and a Landscape Architect.
  • Fees – AGC Fees were considerably reduced with the $50 and $100 deposits for the Desk Review and External Change categories made fully refundable.
  • String/Bistro Lights – To settle the controversy over the use of these type of decorative lights (many felt that their use viloated the intent of a “dark sky” community) the SOA Board adopted a policy permitting their use subject to AGC approval.
  • Communuty Standards Committee – This owner member committee was disolved by the SOA Board with its functions to be directly performed by the SOA Board members.
  • Sierra Canyon ARC  –  Issues between the SOA AGC and the Sierra Canyon ARC regarding responsibiities and approvals (ongoing since 2018) carried over into 2019. Also a lot of discontent over the applicability of the $1200 special assessment to Sierra Canyon owners.

Somersett Residential Developments:

  • The Cliffs at Somersett – Hillside excavation work completed. This 165 unit Toll Brothers development  is well underway with several homes nearing completion and the majority of available lots either sold or under deposit. The many concerns expressed by Somersett Owners earlier in 2019, regarding hillside appearance and drainage, have apparently subsided (perhaps to rise again during the wet season). Homes in this development range from 2,636 – 4,118 sq. ft with a starting price of $625,995.
  • The Greens at Town Center – Construction of ten connected town house units began in 2019 and, as anyone can see driving down the Parkway, is well under way. These 2150 – 2350 sq. ft. units are scheduled to start at $550,000.
  • Ventana Ridge – A development adjacent to Somersett that has requested an easment through a small native section of SOA property to allow access to the development from Pevine Creek Road. After several iterations, the SOA Board voted to sell them the land for $300,000. If accepted, this will most likely require a homeowner vote in 2020.
  • Growth – The total number of Somersett Units at year end 2019 was 3135. Total projected for 2020 is 3176.

SGCC Issues:

  • Rockery Wall Repair Costs – The issue over the Somersett Golf and Country Club’s (SGCC) liability for Rockery Wall repair costs remained unresolved throughout 2019. SOA litigation against the SGCC for their perceived share of repair costs (estinated at $680K) was placed on hold via a Tolling Agreement between the two parties, which was in effect until December 31, 2019. At the December 2019 Board Meeting, it was decided not to renew the Tolling Agreement and to form an “Executive Committee” to negotiate with the SGCC on the liability issue. As planned, the Committee will consist of three SOA Board members and two unit owners.
  • Water Facilities Maintenance – In Janurary 2019, the SOA Engineer, Seth Padovan, issued a report on the status of the SGCC and Canyon9 golf course water supply system components. This report identified some deficiencies and contained recommendations for both short and log-term maintenance and/or repairs. Under the Water Facilities Agreement between the SOA and the SGCC, the majority of the water supply system components are the responsibility of the SGCC to maintain. The question that arose was will the SGCC be able financially to live up to its responsibilities under the Agreement. To address this issue and to assure that proper maintenance of the Water Facilities is achieved, a “Water Facilities Advisory Committee” consisting of both SOA and SGCC Board Members was established.

Litigation:

  • Rockery Wall lawsuit – In October 2019, the District Court of Nevada issued a Summary Judgement Order in favor of the Defendants (Somersett Development Company et al.) in the SOA’s Chapter 40 lawsuit. Basically concluding that it fell outside of the six-year Statute of Repose. However, not to be deterred, in November 2019, the SOA BOD voted to appeal the Courts decision. This action could add significantly to the ~$400K in 2019 legal fees, which does not include the SOA’s estimated $100K-$150K liability for repayment of Defendant’s legal costs.
  • Northgate Owners Lawsuit – In March 2019, the District Court of Nevada issued their final ruling in favor of Somersett Owners James and McCulloch in their lawsuit against the SOA. In its ruling, the Court found that former Northgate Golf Course property purchased by the James’ and McCulloch’s (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. This lawsuit had been ongoing since 2015 and has cost the SOA approximately $400K in legal fees.

Rockery Wall Lawsuit Appeal & SGCC Tolling Agreement

The following is an addition to the previous post on the December 12th SOA BOD Meeting Recap

ROCKERY WALL LAWSUIT APPEAL – Agenda Item 7.b

At the December 12th SOA Board Meeting, the SOA Attorney, Michael Schuman, was present to provide a Rockery Wall lawsuit update and to present and answer questions on the Decision to Appeal.

Update:

  • The SOA filed the Notice to Appeal on November 1, 2019
  • On the original lawsuit, the Defendant’s motions for Attorney fees and the SOA’s oppositions to such have both been filed. It appears that the SOA’s liability for such fees will be in the $100K – $150K range. This judgement is expected before year-end, but any awards will be placed on hold pending the Appeal decision.
  • A joint teleconference with the Settlement Judge was conducted on November 13 with a Mediation Session set for March 13, 2020.

Decision to Appeal:

Mr. Schulman gave a lengthy dissertation, albeit not very understandable or persuasive to the average soul, on the Decision to Appeal. Bottom line is that he primarily gave the same reasons for success that he did at the March 2018 homeowner information meeting on the initial lawsuit.

It appears that they are hanging their hat on refuting the Court’s decision as to when “substantial completion” of the Rockery Walls occurred. Hence, falling within the Statue of Repose limitations. He offered up his opinion that the presiding Judge has not been consistent in his rulings on this issue and therefore, worth appealing. Also that the potential cost of Rockery Wall failures in the future justified the decision to proceed with the lawsuit.

In addressing cost questions, Mr. Schulman advised that the $15K fee to the Association for filing the appeal was very reasonable. He dodged the question as to what “discounted fees” would be afforded the Association should we win the appeal and continue the lawsuit, that this had not yet been established. Regarding the total estimated cost for continuing the lawsuit, should the appeal hold up, Mr. Schulman advised that this is difficult to estimate at this time, but would not rule out another $400K – $500K. He commented on the fact that “expert” testimonies and documents would not have to be repeated. Therefore, no additional costs in this area.

Mr. Schulman also advised that the March 13 Mediation Session will most likely not produce any closure and that the Appeal will then go to the Supreme Court for resolution.

SU’s main criticism of Mr. Schulman’s presence was that, rather than keeping his Decision to Appeal comments and question responses sweet and simple, he obfuscated them with too much lengthy and tangential dialog. Thereby losing his audience.

SGCC TOLLING AGREEMENT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE – Agenda Item 7.r

At the December 12th SOA Board Meeting, the Board approved the formation of an “Executive Committee” to interface with the SGCC for payment of repairs made on SGCC leased land as a result of the Hole 5 Rockery Wall failures. Note that these walls were not replaced, rather a hillside modification was made encompassing both the SOA common area portion and the SGCC leased portion.

Litigation against the SGCC for payment of their share of the repair costs (estimated at $680K) was previously placed on hold via a Tolling Agreement, in effect until December 31, 2019 unless renewed by both parties. In discussing this item, the Board voted to not extend the Tolling Agreement. A benefit to the SOA in that they can now proceed with a lawsuit against the SGCC if so desired. A benefit to the SGCC in that they no longer are obligated to pay the SOA $500/month as stipulated in the Agreement.

The Committee will consist of five members. Three of which will be those Board members not associated with the SGCC (i.e., Fitzgerald, Hanson and Baker) and two homeowners appointed by the Board. Ostensibly owners with “unbiased opinions”.

The SOA General Manager will prepare a Charter for the Committee and submit it to the Board for approval. Per the GM, it will be simple, probably no more than one short paragraph (good luck with that!) with a stated purpose of resolving the payment issue with the SGCC.

SU suspects that the preceding will not alleviate homeowner fears that, due to the SGCC’s financial woes, a settlement will be reached at the expense of the SOA. Many will question the need for such a Committee, given that the SGCC’s obligations under the Purchase Agreement are quite clear. Therefore, either they pay-up or the SOA sues them for breach of contract and payment of the repair costs. If this results in defaut on the part of the SGCC and the land reverts back to the SOA, then so be it.   –  A very controversial issue at best!

December 12th BOD Meeting Recap

Following is a recap of issues discussed and/or approved at the December 12th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting (Note: Board Member Baker was not in attendance). Corresponding Agenda items are referenced. Also note that a recap of Agenda Items 7.b “Rockery Wall Lawsuit – Decision to Appeal” and 7.r “SGCC Tolling Agreement – Appointment of Executive Committee” will be covered in a subsequent Post. A copy of the BOD Meeting Agenda may be accessed via the following link:

December 12th BOD Meeting Agenda – Final

Homeowner attendance at the meeting was minimal and disapointing, which was surprising given the previous announcement that an SOA Attorney would be in attendance to answer questions on the decision to appeal the Court’s decision on the Rockery Wall Lawsuit.

Prior to start of the Meeting, Board Member Retter isued an appoligy to homeowner Dean Nishimura for interrupting his comment at the last Board meeting, which led to an unfortunate confrontation. Mr. Retter acknowledged that his interruption was inappropriate as all owners have a right to be heard without interrruption.

Homeowner Comments On Agenda Items

  • A request that in discussing Item 7.r, “Appointment of a SGCC Tolling Agreement Executive Committee”, the Board address the specific purpose/charter of the Committee and what they hope to accomplish.
  • An opinion on, whatever was decided on the Developer’s offer pertaining to Item 6.c “Ventana Ridge Easement Access”, that the BOD recognize a homeowner vote for acceptance is required and would be carried out.
  • A recommendation that the Item 7.l “Office Space for Vue/Village Community Manager at TCTC” request be disapproved, as sufficient space already exists in the Sub-Association’s conference room.
  • In reference to Item 7.r, that it is time for the SGCC to pay up for their share ($680K) of the Rockery Wall repairs on the SGCC land leased from the SOA.  The homeowner made the following points: 1) As the Lessee the SGCC is responsible for operating and maintaining their golf course, which was built on SOA land; 2) Somersett owners have paid $215 each out of the $1,200 assessment for the Golf Course repairs, it is not right that owners have to subsidize the SGCC; and 3) Fears that the Golf Course going brown and home values being affected are nonsense, the SOA owns the water rights and can easily keep green and open whatever portion of the land it so desires.

Financials

  • 5.a. & 5.b. Treasurers Report and October, September & August 2019 Financials – The Board approved the financial statements (e.g., Balance Sheets, Revenue & Expenses) for each of the four cost centers (i.e., Common Area, TCTC, Private Streets & Gates, Town Center). For those interested in all the details, the financial statements are included within the December 12th Board Meeting Packet accessible on the SOA website (www.somersett.net) under the SOA/Committees & Meetings tabs.

Old Business

  • 6.a. Legal Updates – The SOA Attorney Michael Schulman was present at the meeting to provide an update on the Rockery Wall Lawsuit and answer questions on the decision to appeal the Summary Judgement that ruled in favor of the defendants (Somersett Development Company et al.). See Item 7.b below.
  • 6.b Easement Access Appraisal for Ventana Ridge – The Board voted (3:1 with Board Member Retter voting NO) to sell the easement property in question to the Ventana Ridge Developer for $300,000 plus all associated costs. Given this is a sale of Common Area property, a homeowner vote will most likely be required.

Editor Comment: The requested easement involves a small section of SOA unused native land at the upper end of Painted River Trail, which essentially provides no usage benefit to the SOA. Easement will permit a Ventana Ridge road to connect to Peavine Creek Road in the residential area adjacent to Somersett. There will be no access to Somersett properties from Ventana Ridge.

  • 6.c String/Bare Bulb Lighting Policy – No progress since last Board Meeting, where the elements of the policy (see following link: Proposed String Lighting Policy) were approved. What remains is to officially incorporate within the SOA policy guidelines.

New Business

  • 7.a  Unanimous Written Consent, Generation Pool Proposal – An acknowledgement that the Board had previously approved Generation Pool to perform repairs to the TCTC kids play pool (resurfacing) in the amount of $58,500.
  • 7.b  Rockery Wall Lawsuit Appeal Decision – See subsequent SU Post on this item as well as Item 7.r “SGCC Tolling Agreement Appointment of Executive Committee”
  • 7.c  Canyon9 Landscape Maintenance Sealed Bids – Two bids for a three year contract were received, one from Reno Green (current vendor) and one from BrightView (Albeit a different Division from the one currently performing the Common Area landscape maintenance). Both were close in price with different provisions for years 2 & 3. Bids were referred to Staff for “apples to apples” evaluations. Whatever the decision, pricing will most likely be in the $285K/year range.
  • 7.d  Town Square and TCTC Landscape Maintenance – Bids were received from Signature Landscaping ($26,684 Town Square & $7,500 TCTC) and BrightView ($27,780 Town Square & $7,092 TCTC). The Board voted to accept the BrightView proposal. Given the closeness of the two proposals, they felt it was beneficial to have the same vendor as for the Common Area.
  • 7.e  IQ Technology Solutions Contract Renewal – IQ contract for IT support services was renewed at $2,455/month.
  • 7.f  Imagine Marketing & Design Newsletter – Annual contract for publishing of the Somersett Living Magazine was renewed at no cost to the SOA. Imagine makes revenue off of advertisements.
  • 7.g  Prestige Building Maintenance Contract Renewal – A Prestige Building Maintenance two year contract for TCTC Janitorial services (includes offsite bathrooms) was renewed at $6,250/month.
  • 7.h  Play Pool Electrical Work – Vasco Electric was awarded a $15,247 contract to upgrade the TCTC kids play pool pump control system.
  • 7.i  Upright Bike Proposal – Approved $3,037 purchase of a Precor UBK Upright for the TCTC Fitness Center with some BOD recommendations regarding placement.
  • 7.j  Flooring Replacement Proposals – Accepted the SI Legacy Commercial Floor Finishing proposal of $30,700 for carpet replacements at TCTC.
  • 7.k  Appoint Members to West Park Community Garden Committee – Homeowners Ken McNeil (Chair), Lorrie Moore, Gary Fleeman, Rosie Metsker and Jay Deputy were appointed to the Committee. K Kuan So was designated as an alternate
  • 7.l  Office Space for the Vue/Village Sub-Association Community Manager – Office space for the FirstService Residential Community Manager was approved for TCTC occupancy. A spare office space was available and it was determined beneficial for improved communications between Master and Sub-Association management.
  • 7.m  2019 Audit Proposal – Approved retention of Hilburn & Lein, CPAs as the SOA auditor. Fees estimated at $7,275.
  • 7.n  Amended Liquor License – Liquor license at TCTC was in the name of Mellissa Ramsey (former SOA Community Manager) who is moving out of state and no longer able to continue it. License was terminated effective immediately. Alternative is for the liquor license to be placed in the name of the SOA Board. No decision was made, situation will be looked into.
  • 7.o  Board Liaison Assignments for Committees – Assignments (Primary/Alternate) are as follows: AGC – Fitzgerald/Hanson; Finance – Baker/Strout; Communications – Retter/Hanson; West Park Garden – Strout; Facilities – Retter/Baker. SGCC assignments were placed on hold pending adoption of the SGCC Tolling Agreement Committee Charter (See Agenda item 7.r)
  • 7.p  2020 On-Site Reserve Study Proposal – Approved acceptance of the Browning Reserve Group proposal to perform the SOA Reserve Study. Price was $10,000.
  • 7.q  2020 BOD Meeting Date Calendar – Approved, see following link:   2020 Board & Executive Meeting Calendar
  • 7.r  SGCC Tolling Agreement Appointment of Executive Committee – See subsequent SU Post on this Item as well as Item 7.b “Rockery Wall Lawsuit Appeal Decision”

Board Member Comments

  • Board Member Retter suggested looking (in conjunction with the Communications Committee) into the holding of Town Center Meetings on important SOA issues. Also, wants to form a Committee to review and modify the SOA’s Governing Documents (e.g., the PUD, CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Aesthetic Guidelines).

Post Meeting Homeowner Comments

  • A homeowner shared information on traffic safety issues/initiatives primarily along the 4th Street Corridor. This included the consideration of a round-about to relieve the entrance/exit traffic safety issue at Mesa Park Road and 4th Street.
  • The owner of the storage facility adjacent to Sierra Canyon who wants to build an additional storage facility addressed the Board with some problems he is apparently having with the Aesthetic Guidelines Committee. His presentation was a little hard to follow for the uninformed on this project. Apparently it has something to do with setbacks and a desire to have a more open dialog with the AGC to resolve differences.
  • A comment on why the Board did not go out for competitive bidding on TCTC janitorial services given the magnitude of the contract ($150K over two years). Management Staff response was that competitive bids were difficult to obtain (15 sent out last time with only 2 responses, one of which was too high). Therefore, the decision to renew the current vendors contract based on no price increase and acceptable past performance. Also, a comment that the Communication Committee suggestion to consider inclusion of advertisements on the SOA website to generate revenue was a bad idea.
  • An opinion that the SOA Attorney did not give a positive enough response on their recommendation to appeal the Rockery Wall lawsuit decision to warrant moving forward with it. That even if we win the appeal, we will eventually loose the lawsuit at a significant cost in legal fees to the Association.
  • A kudos to the SOA and Somersett residents for their Holiday decoration efforts.

Note: Both of the above Homeowner Comment sections reflect what the writer remembers from attendance at the Meeting and listening to the audio tapes of such, which are not always clear. If any of the above characterizations are not entirely correct, corrections are welcome.

Town Square Commercial Properties

Back in June of 2019, the SOA filed a “NOTICE OF DELINQUENT ASSESSMENT AND CLAIM OF LIEN”, against the owner (Saemaul Investment LLC) of the Town Square Building housing the Sakana Sushi restaurant (also owned by Saemaul), claiming they were $19,976 in arrears of their SOA assessment payments. Per the Lien document, assessments for this property total $4,408.65/month consisting of a $1,561.25/month regular assessment and a $2,847.40/month master assessment. It is not clear to SU what the difference between these two assessments are, as the SOA’s 2019 operating budget only accounts for the master assessment revenue.

Apparently Saemaul Investment did not make good on the past due payments, because on November 27, 2019 the SOA filed a “NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL” stating the assessment obligation now totals an estimated $55,286.56. This notice states that: “Pursuant to NRS 116.3116-116.3166 (inclusive), the sale of the real property described below will be held if the deficiency and total amount due is not completely satisfied and paid within ninety (90) days from the date of the mailing of this Notice of Default and Election to Sell”. Not sure what has transpired since then, and why does the SOA want to force the sale of the property? Is there bad blood here, or only a money issue? Hopefully, the SOA will not end up owning it (there is no Deed of Trust encumbering the property) and the future liabilities associated with such ownership (occupancy has been a past problem), or is there an upside here?

Ownership of the Town Square Commercial Properties also has a clouded history, for the interested, a brief summary follows:

  • In December 2006, Somersett Development Company LTD obtained a loan from Colonial Bank N.A for $8,775,000 secured by a Deed of Trust for the Town Center Commercial properties.
  • In August 2009, Colonial Bank failed amid a fraud scandal and went into receivership.
  • In March 2010, the Receivers initiated a NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL UNDER DEED OF TRUST against Somersett Development Company due to nonpayment of principal and interest installments.
  • In November 2010, Eagle SPE NV1 purchased the properties for $3,232,000.
  • In May 2012 Eagle SPE NV1 sold property 1 (the one with the drive up window) to its current owner CAV Somersett LLC for $1,050,000.
  • In March 2013 Eagle SPE NV1 sold property 2 to Saemaul Investment for $820,000.

With regard to all the Town Square properties, beginning in 2018, a new cost center “Town Square Properties” for the SOA was established. This in addition to the existing General Common, The Club at Town Center and the Private Gates & Streets. Information related to this new cost center may be obtained by accessing the following SU Blog article dated December 5, 2017:   Town Square Properties Cost Center

The 2019 operating budget for this cost center may be accessed via the following link:   Town Square 2019 Operating Fund Budget

Given that the Town Square properties are now an integral part of the Somersett operating budget, perhaps the SOA Board could provide owners with an update as to what is transpiring with all of these properties.

What say you? Would it be in the SOA’s best interest to acquire ownership of the Saemual property?

December 12th SOA BOD Meeting

Following is the Final Agenda for the December 12th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting at The Club at Town Center (TCTC). No change from the draft agenda previously published except for inclusion of the October 2019 financials.

December 12th BOD Meeting Agenda – Final

Information/comments on some of the agenda items (noted) as obtained from the Board Meeting Packet follow:

Committee Reports:

  • 4.a  Budget & Finance – Recommended approval of the Vasco proposal for Item 7.h Play Pool Electrical Work, and Item 7.j SI Legacy proposal for TCTC carpet replacement.
  • 4.b  Communications – Upcoming tasks: 1) Enhancements to improve the usability of the SOA website are nearing completion and should be ready for implementation early in 2020; 2) A look into the feasibility of posting ads on the SOA website to generate revenue; and 3) Commissioned FirstService Residential to print a large map of the community to facilitate communication at Board meetings. Also determined that the use of electronic communication signs within the community are not possible due to City of Reno restrictions.
  • 4.d  General Manager – A Rockery Wall Inspection Program report indicates that, to date, there is nothing significant to report. The November Padovan Consulting update on SOA engineering projects may be accessed via the following link:     SOA Engineering Update – November 2019

Old Business:

  • 6.a  Legal Updates – On November 1, 2019, the SOA filed notices of appeal against the Court’s ruling on the Summary Judgement in favor of the Defendants (Somersett Development Company et al.) in the Rockery Wall lawsuit. Appeals were assigned to the NRAP Settlement Program. A subsequent telephone conference with the Settlement Judge resulted in a Mediation Session set for March 13, 2020. The SOA also filed an opposition motion against each Defendants’ motion for attorney fees, a ruling on this matter is expected before year end. Note: Information on the NRAP Settlement Program may be accessed via the following link:       https://nvcourts.gov/Settlement_Program/Overview/
  • 6.b,c  Ventana Ridge Easement Access Appraisal and String/Bare Bulb Lighting Policy – No background info contained in the BOD Meeting Packet. Apparently just a discussion on status.

New Business:

  • 7.a  Unanimous Written Consent – Board Meeting Packet contained an unsigned Unanimous Written Consent document approving Generation Pool to perform repairs to the TCTC kids play pool (resurfacing) in the amount of $58,500. Not sure why the Consent Document is unsigned. Note: Unanimous Written Consent authorizations are normally used when there is an urgency involved. That is, cannot wait until the next Board Meeting.
    7.b  Rockery Wall Lawsuit Appeal Decision – No background info contained in the Board Meeting Packet on this item. Assume that it relates to an SOA previous announcement that an Attorney would be present to answer homeowner questions regarding the Appeal.
    7.c,d  Sealed Bids to be opened for the Canyon9 Golf Course, Town Square and TCTC Landscape Maintenance. Services are currently being performed by Reno Green (Canyon9) and Signature landscaping (Town Square & TCTC).
    7.e,f,g,h,i, j  The following Vendor proposals will be acted on:
    1. IQ Technology Solutions at $2,455/month for IT Managed Services.
    2. Imagine Marketing & Design annual contract for publishing of the Somersett Living Magazine at no cost to the SOA. Imagine makes revenue off of ads.
    3. Prestige Building Maintenance at $6,250/month (2-year contract) for TCTC janitorial services.  Comment: at $75,000 annually, was there no competitive bidding?
    4. Vasco Electric at $15,247 for TCTC kids play pool pump control system upgrade.
    5. Commercial Fitness Equipment at $3,037 for a Precor UBK-835 Upright Bike.
    6. TCTC flooring (carpet) replacement (3 options) from three different Vendors: 1) SI Legacy at $25,200-$30,700-$38,400; 2) BC Floor Coverings at $26,700-$32,455-$40,675; and 3) Definitive Flooring at $27,470-$34.08 -$41,860.
  • 7.k  Appoint Members to West Park Community Garden Committee – No info contained in the Board Meeting Packet as to who the members will be.
  • 7.n  Amended Liquor License – Amendment terminates the current liquor license with FirstService Residential effective January 1, 2020. No indication as to how this will be handled moving forward.
  • 7.o  Board Liaison Assignments for Committees – Assignments (Primary/Alternate) are as follows: 1) AGC – Fitzgerald/Hanson; 2) Finance – Baker/Strout; 3) Communications – Retter/Hanson; 4) Garden – Strout; 5) Facilities – Retter/Baker; and 6) SGCC – Fitzgerald, Hanson, Baker.
  • 7.r  SGCC Tolling Agreement Appointment of Executive Committee – Per item 7.o, this will consist of Board members Fitzgerald, Hanson and Baker (obvious as Board Members Strout and Retter are SGCC Members). No information contained in the Board Meeting Packet as to the purpose/charter of this Committee. Perhaps to negotiate a settlement with the SGCC rather than pursue litigation?

This is the first open Board Meeting that includes the two newly elected Board members Craig Hanson and Simon Baker. As always, owners are encouraged to attend the monthly SOA BOD Meetings. Especially this one, given the controversial decision to appeal the Rockery Wall lawsuit and the attendance of an SOA Attorney to answer questions in this regard..