October 14th SOA Board Meeting

Following is the Agenda for the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting at The Club at Town Center (TCTC) to be held at 5:30 PM on October 14th.

October 14th BOD Meeting Agenda

Given that TCTC is still operating under COVID-19 restrictions, Owner participation will again be via  “Zoom” videoconferencing.

The Board Packet providing background information on Agenda items is available on the SOA Website (www.somersett.net) under the SOA Committees and Meetings link.  Comments on agenda items follow (agenda items noted):

4.  Committee Reports

4.b.  Communications  –  Committee requested Board Permission to release Owner survey data to the community at large. Survey topics and related data are available in the Board Meeting Packet referenced above. Questions centered on opinions and not suggestions, and included the following: 1) Like living in Somersett (76% indicated satisfaction), 2) Community appearance (67% indicated satisfaction), 3) Board effectiveness (28% indicated satisfaction), 4) Management company performance (38% indicated satisfaction) and SOA communications (58% indicated satisfaction). However, since only about 17% of Owners responded to the survey, one could question the accuracy of the results.

4.d.  West Park Garden  –  Committee has submitted a  “Community Garden Policy and Rules” document for Board approval.  Document is available in the Board Meeting Packet.

4.e.  Governing Documents Review  –  Committee has submitted the revised SOA “Articles of Incorporation” and “Bylaws” documents for Board approval. Copies of the revised documents along with a summary description of the proposed changes are available in the Board Meeting Packet

6.  Unfinished Business

6.a  Legal Updates  –  1) Rockery Wall Lawsuit – Appeal briefs are still in the filing process. The defendants have until October 14th to file their answering brief, after which the SOA will have 30 days to reply. Per the SOA Attorney legal update letter, “the matter will then be reviewed by the Supreme Court to determine whether it is suitable for oral argument and whether the matter will be retained by the full Supreme Court or routed to the Court of Appeals”. 2) SGCC Lawsuit – According to the SOA Attorney legal update letter, a bench trial has been set for January 24, 2022 (really?) with a pre-trial conference set for November 2, 2020.

7.  New Business

7.a.  Rockery Wall Mitigation for Main Entrance  –  A Request for Proposal (RFP) prepared by Padovan Consulting to solicit bids for “Phase 1 of the Rock Fall Mitigation Project”, which addresses the ongoing rock fall hazards on the Somersett entrance hillside slopes. The RFP includes an Appendix containing a letter from Black Eagle Consulting describing existing conditions (with pictures), project scope, and RFP guidelines.

7.b.  Community Wide Concrete Repairs  –  A RFP prepared by Padovan Consulting to solicit bids for concrete repairs at designated locations throughout Somersett. Generally dealing with curbs and gutters.

7.c.  Fire Fuel Abatement Proposals  –  Opening of sealed bids

7.d.  2021 General Common, TCTC, Town Square & Gates Budgets  –  Ratification of the proposed 2021 SOA Budget, with assessments as follows: 1) General Common – $107/month, a $2.00/month increase, 2) The Club at Town Center – $89/month, no change, and 3) Private Streets and Gates – $50,month, a $4/month decrease.

7.e.  2021 General Common, TCTC, Town Square & Gates Reserve Study  –  Results of the Browning Reserve Group SOA Reserve Study for 2021. The Reserve Study forecasts the SOA’s ability to repair/replace major components as they wear out in future years. The 2021 study establishes a funding level of 63.8% for TCTC and 116.4% for Private Streets and Gates. For reasons unknown, the Board Meeting Packet did not contain a Reserve Study for the General Common, perhaps an unintended omission or not yet available.

7.f.  Policy Reviews  –  Review/Approval of the following Association Policies: 1) Collection of Assessments – Policy on the levying of assessments and collections, includes a schedule of collection fees and costs, 2) Compliance – Policy for handling violations to the Associations governing documents, includes a schedule of fines, 3) Expense – Policy on expense limitations and bid requirements for Association operations. 4) Investment  –  Policy on investment objectives for Association funds, 5) Executive Board Awareness Form – Not a policy, a required signature form that the Board is aware of all legal requirements pursuant to the applicable laws and regulations.  All of the aforementioned policies are available in the Board Meeting Packet for viewing.

9 thoughts on “October 14th SOA Board Meeting

  1. What happens, if by 2022, there is even more damage to unmaintained equipment, resulting in more financial loss to the SOA?

  2. There were a few concerns I had about the meeting last night. The largest of which is that when it came time to pay for the common area concrete repairs, rather than using the general common reserve fund, it was instead taken from the gates reserve fund. WHAT? The homeowners living behind the gates are paying extra for the maintenance and reserve for GATES and GATES alone. This is not a slush fund to pay for common area repairs or whatever else you want to use it for. This is taking money from some residents and using it to pay for obligations of all residents. Is that even legal?

    The second concern is after the Treasurer and Finance Committee pored over every financial detail for months when it comes time to approve the budget board member Joe Strout pulls out some figures off the top of his head and advances a motion that the board use his best guess estimate instead of the finance committee and the treasurer’s reports to determine assessments. Amazingly the board votes with Joe and away we go; guided not be facts and figures, but a wet finger in the wind.

    This just cost us the best treasurer the board ever had and probably the finance committee also. It didn’t help that the board hides its actions to pay bonuses to their buddies at First Service Residential.

    You go it alone at your own peril, an election is coming up.

    1. I am shocked that our volunteer Treasurer with such vast experience in managing finances of a large Corporation was treated by our Board and Owners with such disrespect and lack of consideration for all the efforts he has put forth. I too am concerned with the ever increasing costs from First Residential and he is correct in seeking to investigate this. If we don’t get control of our expenses, where does this put the future of our community. First, the Country Club members need to stop the haggling, dragging out the inevitable and pay up! If they cannot afford to pay for the costs of this club, they need to admit that and move on.

  3. The Number One Problem in any HOA is the board running it as a social club and not the corporation that it legally is. The Number Two Problem in any HOA is the board running it on personal opinions and not facts nor strict adherence to the governing documents and state law.

    What is best for the Somersett Owners Association at this time is for Simon Baker to remain on the board and be re-appointed as treasurer. Then appoint former treasurer Ray Lee, hopefully he accepts, as non-board member assistant treasurer. Both Simon and Ray were top top financial people in the corporate world and putting their knowledge, experience and heads together is exactly what is needed in the world of Somersett finance.

    Bonuses are unnecessary for FSR personnel, except out of kindness maybe a little appreciation money at year-end holidays. FSR personnel are not employees of the association. Rather they are employees of FSR. That is where any bonuses need to come from.

    I’ve heard Sierra Canyon was giving a Quarterly Bonus to their now departed and probably overpaid community manager. If true, that makes me want to puke.

    Bonus bonus, hey Board is running a business! Any bonus is not routine.

  4. Thank you to SU (Jim Haar) for accurately capturing the meeting as it unfolded. I believe that SU should credit the voices he quotes, folks don’t speak anonymously at open Board Meetings!
    One point, made 0n SU by the three new candidates running for the open seats, is that they will be diligent in answering questions posed towards agenda items.

    I watched the Board overrule the Treasurer’s recommended $2 a month to the General Assessments. This was a motion by Joe Stoudt the previous Treasurer, a Board member (not re-running) to cancel the recommended increase. Subsequently I understand that Simon resigned.

    Given the high level of debt we have to carry, the high on-going legal bills, and that we have to pay for repairs to the private Country Club’s golf course and maintain the water rights, it strikes me prudent that we raise the assessments.

    Apparently, additional monies are going to have to be spent on the “Cut” into on Somersett Parkway. This was never, engineered or constructed properly. the declarant was able to win a Chapter 40 settlement on our behalf. Unfortunately insufficient funds were allocated by the declarant for the “FIX”, as there are still issues with boulders, wind erosion, etc. causing danger to passing motorists…pedestrians are banned for safety reasons.

    The quality of the audio was very poor. As an Association we are always paying for updates to the AV systems at the TCTC…hence FR’s inability to get Zoom working…which worked well for all our Document Committee meetings…simply amazes. It would also be helpful if Simon did not sit next to the conference room speaker and shuffle his “papers”!

    Given the fact that we have a COVID19 flareup in Washoe Co/Reno (now over 10,000 cases) … our rolling 7 day infection rate is 4 x higher than San Francisco and significantly higher than Clark County. There was only 1 person who was concerned enough about everyones safety to wear a mask. There appeared to be about 10 + folks in a small room; the camera placement made it difficult to see if everyone was socially distancing. We have had over 40 cases of COVID19 in the 89523 zip. Time for the Board to follow the mask wearing mandates, set an example for all.

    It was difficult to understand the plaudits given by President Fitzgerald to Joe, after-all he is a member of the private Golf Club – which we are suing. Also Joe very deliberately nixed a lot of careful financial planning work of the Finance Committee!
    Terry Retter, also a member of the Golf Club, had advocated, on several occasions, that a compromise on paying the Somersett Owners Association (US) for fixing the private golf course, along the lines of the offer of ~$250K made by the Board. Instead they showed their hostility to all the residents living here, not good neighbors, not community minded whatsoever, a paltry $25K! Everyone paid an extra $1200 special assessment – ~ $200 of which fixed the damage to the Golf Course.

    The Builders (Toll Ryder, Hillbrow), active in Somersett, should be approached to help pay to keep the private golf course going. They benefit most from having an active an active Golf Course, creating a sense of community well being, adds 10 to 15% to the selling price of their new properties. Once they are gone they won’t care!

    1. Dickson Realty has hauled in big bucks in Somersett.. maybe they should give something back to the community.. David Hughes is an SGCC member.. maybe he could get the members to kick in to cover their own expenses.. If realtors, golfers, and builders believe in the golf club, let them kick in. There is some value in having the golf course, but we don’t need the SGCC to run it. There are many options..

  5. It is imperative, that the SGCC members pay their own way. Why should the rest of Somersett (who can only play the course 4 times a year) pay for their privilege of being members of a private course. This doesn’t make sense! There should be no negotiating! These members need to dip into their savings accounts and each kick in $5,000 or, whatever it takes, to make their club whole if they want it to remain private. There is not enough benefit to the community at large in having this course private. Look at property values at the failed D’Andrea Course. They haven’t lost anything since the course failed. Just look at the success of Arrowcreek! There are many other avenues of operation to this greenbelt that the SOA Board should have considered before launching into an expensive legal battle. This Board has failed and needs to be replaced!

  6. I totally agree with the above comments, about the SGCC paying their own way..A small group that wants to remain elite should pay its own way.. Otherwise, there are many options, which should have been planned for, a long time ago.

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