May 27th BOD Meeting Recap

Following is a recap of topics discussed and/or approved at the May 27th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting, which due to the COVID-19 restrictions was the first one held since Febuary. However, as the Board had previously advised,  it would not be open to physical attendance by Owners, but rather by video link. How did this work out? pretty good in SU’s opinion. In fact the number of Owners who logged in, exceeded normal attendance at past physical meetings.

Owners were allowed to submit comments, on agenda items or otherwise, via email up to 3:00 PM prior to the meeting. Those that did so had them read by the Board. Submitted comments included the following:

  1. That BrightView was not paying enough attention to side roads off the Parkways as regards landscape maintenance – Board response being that the regional head of BrightView had visited Somersett and was not completely happy with what he saw throughout the Community, and all issues would be diligently addressed, including replacing some turf at their own cost. Apparently, lawn fungus is a problem within Somersett.
  2. Status on the cost recovery from the Country Club for their share of Rockery Wall repairs – Board response basically being that there was nothing to report.
    Note: In December 2019 the Board authorized the formation of an “Executive Committee” to work with the Country Club on resolving this issue. For background information readers are referred to SU’s previous post of December 14th entitled “Rockery Wall Lawsuit Appeal and SGCC Tolling Agreement
  3. An opposition, by Committee members, against the proposed revision to the Document Review Committee Charter – Board advised that there was an apparent miscommunication here and that the Charter revision would not be considered (i.e., removed as an agenda item).
    Note: in a related discussion, the Board wanted to review the Committee’s draft mark-up of the CC&R’s before submitting to the SOA Attorney for legal review of the “Declarant” (i.e., Somersett Development Company) related provisions that the Committee is recommending to delete from the CC&R’s

New Business Items on the Agenda were disposed of as follows:

Note: For background information on the following agenda items,  see SU’s previous post   “May 27th SOA BOD Meeting

  • 7.a.  Shared Maintenance Agreement – Approved sharing the maintenance costs tor the Town Center round about on a 60% (SOA) and 40% (Villages) basis.
  • 7.b.  Dakota Ridge Drainage Repairs – Approved the EPS Proposal for $7150.
  • 7.c.  1880 Dove Mountain Erosion Repair – This project covers repairs on both private and Association property. The Board approved the EPS proposal of which the Association portion amounts to $10,924.
  • 7.d.  Irrigation Controller Replacement – Approved the BrightView proposal for $17, 972
  • 7.e.  Community Entrance Landscape Enhancement – Approved the BrightView Proposal for $17,972. However, the SOA has a $20,000 credit from BrightView that will be used on this project.
  • 7.f.  Lawn Edging Replacement – Approved the BrightView proposal for $13,166.
  • 7.g.  Tree Replacement – Approved the BrightView proposal for $24,785
  • 7.h.  2020 Noxious Weed Removal from Vacant Lots (26 private lots) – Approved the BrightView proposal for $8350. However, this expenditure will not cost the SOA anything as, per prior arrangements, it is all reimbursable from the Lot Owners. Good corporation between Lot Owners and the SOA, which most likely saved them money.
  • 7.i.  Fire Hydrant & Curb Painting – Approved Color Trend proposal of $4450 for 106 fire hydrants & curbs along private streets.
  • 7.j,k.l. & m.  Unanimous Written Consent Documents # 70,72,73,74  –  A formal acknowledgement of prior approvals. Of particular interest is #74 which established the “Somersett Guidelines for Re-Opening TCTC“. Board advised that FSR is working with Washoe County on process for re-opening TCTC pool as soon as possible and that staff hires will be needed (e.g., life guards)
  • 7.n.  Revised Document Review Committee Charter – Not acted on, removed from agenda.
  • 7.o.  The Boulders Gate Closure Complaint – A community complaint that the security gates are being left open much too often, thereby compromising security. Board advised they will work with contractors (reason for gates being open most of the time) in an attempt to help alleviate the situation. Perhaps with the issuance of temporary gate codes.
  • 7.p.  Software for TCTC – Conditionally approved proposal for use of the Alosant “Amenity Pass” system at TCTC. Price is $7200/year with a $2500 initial setup fee. Conditionality was predicated on a better understanding of what, if any, support fees would be involved.
  • 7.q.  Discussion on June Mail-out – Apparently there has been some revised “Rules and Regulations” adopted by the Board and whether or not the SOA should go ahead with a previously targeted June Mail-out to owners, or wait to include some new developments. Decision was made to go ahead with the mail-out as planned.
  • 7.r.  Collection Company Change – A discussion on whether or not the SOA should change collection companies given concerns over the performance of the current company. A recommendation has been made that the SOA switch back to Red Rock Financial Services as our collection agent. Previous concerns the SOA had with Red Rock have apparently been alleviated.

 

7 thoughts on “May 27th BOD Meeting Recap

  1. Regarding 7q, why any discussion when NRS 116.12065 clearly says:

    “If any change is made to the governing documents of an association, the secretary or other officer specified in the bylaws of the association shall, within 30 days after the change is made, prepare and cause to be delivered a copy of the change that was made.”

    1. Peggy @ Somersett,

      Your comment is based on an erroneous assumption. Item 7.q. does not relate to “Governing Documents”, which NRS116.12065 strictly pertains to. Rather, to some newly approved SOA policies, which the Board can change from time to time on their own accord.

  2. Dear SU,

    7q clearly relates to the mail-out time of “some revised ‘Rules and Regulations’ adopted by the Board.”

    There is no such thing as a now or later mail-out time as per NRS 116.12065 mail-out for revisions to Governing Documents (which Rules and Regulations and Policies are) is to be within 30 days after revisions made, i.e. board approval.

    Examples of Governing Documents include CC&R’s; Bylaws; Architectural and Landscape Guidelines; Rules; Regulations; Insurance Deductible; all Policies, including Fine, Collection, and Committee; Procedures; Resolutions; even a rule that is created to define something not clear in the CC&R’s. Basically anything in writing that association members are subject to.

    Copies of revisions to Governing Documents must be delivered to all association members by US Mail, unless they’ve opted to receive them electronically, i.e. as an attachment to an email; and they do not take effect until 30 days after they are mailed/sent.

    Somersett and Sierra Canyon association members have signed a form authorizing reception of NOTICES electronically. The form does not authorize them to receive DOCUMENTS by electronic means. These forms need to be revised to read NOTICES AND DOCUMENTS and then be re-signed by owners.

    During Covid-19 a board may have adopted pool and fitness center rules that will apply to their reopening after lockdown ends. These would have been done on an emergency basis and owners notified of their being effective immediately. Otherwise they could not have been reopened.

    All this can verified with the association attorney.

    Finally, NRS 116 does not care what it costs an association for its provisions to be followed. It does care that they are followed.

    1. Peggy,

      Not sure your broad definition of a “Governing Document” is supported by NRS 116 which states:

      NRS 116.049  “Governing documents” defined.  “Governing documents” means:
      1.  The declaration for the common-interest community;
      2.  The articles of incorporation, articles of association, articles of organization, certificate of registration, certificate of limited partnership, certificate of trust or other documents that are used to organize the association for the common-interest community;
      3.  The bylaws and rules of the association; and
      4.  Any other documents that govern the operation of the common-interest community or the association.

      Given the above definition, It is hard to imagine that any HOA wise Attorney would agree that an SOA initiated policy document dealing with say” Holiday Lighting” or “Sign Guidelines” would fall under the banner of “governing the operation of the association”.

      But then again what is your specific issue? Are you aware of anytime that the SOA has not notified Owners appropriately or failed to make documents available in a timely manner? Believe you have read too much into item 7.q of the May BOD Meeting recap, where more important items were addressed.

    2. If you have a legitimate concern, this is not the proper forum. Jim Haar, who obscures his identity by pretending to be a group called “Somersett United”, is just one person who is a self-proclaimed expert on everything. Your interaction here will get you nowhere while providing entertainment for Mr. Haar, who has an opinion on everything. To get an authoritative answer or raise a concern, contact soaboard@mysomersett.com. You may also post comments to the official Somersett Community website at https://www.somersett.net, where truly knowledgeable people can assist you.

      1. Wow! Sounds like somebody’s chain was yanked! My only response being that SU’s posts stand by themselves based on “facts” for all to comment on pro or con. With regard to “obscurity”, SU’s “About” page clearly identifies myself as the keeper and editor of the SU blog site. Speaking of obscurity, one might wonder who the commenter identity of “Correction” applies to? Obviously, I would prefer that one stick to commenting on community issues and/or editorial comments published on this website and not indulge in personalities, but that is one’s choice, as long as it is reasonably civil.

        Jim Haar

        1. No one’s chain got yanked but yours. You seem to take any comment you don’t like personally. I’m simply trying to advise your reader that this website does not represent the views of Somersett as a whole. In fact, your use of the Somersett name is a violation of CC&R‘s, Article 12. Most of your material is reprinted from the legitimate Somersett website, copied in violation of the user agreement given on that site. Nothing personal.
          Many of the posts on this site are anonymous, or worse, falsely attributed to others. That is your policy, not mine.

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