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.

2 thoughts on “December 12th BOD Meeting Recap

  1. I support the creation of a Committee to review and revise all Board regulations and others.One change that needs to be made is the ability of owners to vote electronically on important issues ,such as budget approval. It is insane to think that 2/3 of the owners will show at a Board meeting to vote on an issue.The building is not big enough to hold all owners!!!!

  2. I definitely favor voting electronically on issues on which that can be done. Regarding the Budget that is not possible.

    The Finance Committee prepares and submits a Proposed Budget to the Board; the Board then approves the Proposed Budget; and then the Board Approved Budget is sent to the Annual Members Meeting for ratification. However, “ratification” is a misleading term as owners do not vote to ratify the Budget. They can only vote to reject it per State Law, i.e. Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 116. If not rejected, it is automatically considered ratified/approved without holding an actual “in favor” vote. If the required number of owners are not in attendance (which “never” happens – not only here, but in most Nevada HOA’s), there is no vote held to reject.

    “NRS 116.31151(3) Within 60 days after adoption of any proposed budget for the common-interest community, the executive board shall provide a summary of the proposed budget to each unit’s owner and shall set a date for a meeting of the units’ owners to consider ratification of the proposed budget not less that 14 days or more than 30 days after the mailing of the summaries. UNLESS AT THAT MEETING a majority of all units’ owners, or any larger vote specified in the declaration, reject the proposed budget, the proposed budget is ratified, whether or not a quorum is present. If the proposed budget is rejected, the periodic budget last ratified by the units’ owners must be continued until such time as the units’ owners ratify a subsequent budget proposed by the executive board.” (emphasis added)

    Owners concerned about associaion financial matters, including the budget, might consider attending the meetings of the master and sub finance committees. That Committee is the heart of the Association and everything of financial importance flows through it. My experience shows that since the number of attendees is very few, the Committee members will often will take comments from the audience.

    I favor revising association governing documents. However, the wording in any governing document cannot contradict nor override State Law. Any committee set up to work on revisions must be thoroughly familiar with NRS 116.

    Also, please be reminded that revisions to CC&R’s and Bylaws require an approval vote by association members. Rules/Guidelines can be changed at the whim of the board.

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