January 27th 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 Wednesday, January 27th.

January 27 BOD Meeting Agenda

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

The Board Meeting Packet providing background information on Agenda items is available on the SOA Website (www.somersett.org) under the SOA Documents/Board Documents/2021 ltabs.  Board Meeting Packet background and comments on agenda items follow (agenda items noted):

3.  January 13, 2021 BOD Meeting Minutes

The SOA published Draft Meeting Minutes for the January 13th BOD Meeting is available in the Board Meeting Packet referenced above, or one may access SU’s previous post of January 15th entitled “January 13th BOD Meeting Recap” for a summary of what was discussed and/or approved.

4.  Committee Reports

4.a.  Budget & Finance  –  Committee is recommending: 1) the addition of Paul Taybi to the Committee, and 2) the transfer of reserve funds to reserves on a quarterly vs monthly basis, this to accommodate greater cash flow management capability.

4.b.  Communications  –  No report

4.c.  Strategic Planning & Facilities Committee  –  Upcoming activities include: 1) Posting the Capital Project list on the SOA website to encourage community feedback, 2) Solicit comments from the SOA community regarding desired future amenities, and 3) Solicit comments from SOA community regarding playground structure modification.

4.d.  West Park Garden  –  A request that the Board assign a secondary Board liaison member

4.f.  General Manager  –  The General Manager Report (19 pages for this meeting) addresses a variety of topics including: 1) ACG activity and enforcement data, 2) TCTC/Canyon9 activities and usage data, 3) status of community projects, and 4) Padovan (SOA Consulting Engineer) Engineering and Brightview Landscape summary reports. The reader is referred to the Board Meeting Packet referenced above for all the details.

5.  Financials

The usual 30 or so page summary of the SOA’s year to date and monthly financials. For those interested in the details, the SOA financial statements are available within the Board Meeting Packet or on the SOA website under the SOA Documents/Financial Documents tabs.

6.  Unfinished Business

6.a  Legal Updates  –  The monthly SOA Attorney letter to the Board, dated January 22nd, 2021, contained no new information on the Somersett Development Co. Rockery Wall or Preston Homes Back Nine Trail Access lawsuits.

6.b.  American Geotechnical Proposal  –  Delayed action on a $8,500 – $9,500 T&M proposal to inspect rock walls constructed by Ryder Homes prior to turnover to the SOA. Action was tabled at the January 13th BOD Meeting pending receipt of additional information requested by Board members.

6.c.  Smoke Guard Proposal  –  Delayed action on a $5,705 proposal from Smoke Guard of California to replace a defective smoke curtain and associated components at the TCTC elevator. Action was tabled at the January 13th BOD Meeting pending receipt of information requested by a Board member.

6.d.  FireFly Court Update  –  The Board Meeting Packet, as of this posting, contained no update on this on-going controversial issue regarding the Sierra Canyon Association’s blocking of a SOA trail access.

Comment: This issue, although not a significant one, has been ongoing for months now. Seems ample time for the SOA Board to meet with the SCA Board and come to a resolution.

7.  Acknowledge of Action Outside of Meeting

No items for this Agenda category.

Comment: It is not clear to SU as to the purpose of this category as NRS 116.31085 sets limitations on the power of the executive board to meet in executive session and make decisions without publishing an agenda and permitting owner attendance.

8.  New Business

8.a.  Slurry Seal Proposals  –  At the time of this post, no information was available in the Board Meeting Packet. Therefore, no available knowledge as to contractor. price or extent of proposal.

8.b.  Robinson Engineering Proposal  –  A $6,600 proposal to prepare architectural/structural plans for a storage building extension to the existing SOA Maintenance Building.

8.c.  Acceptance of Parcel C in WinterCreek from Lennar  –  A 5,402 sq. ft. non-irrigated common area parcel at the corner of Chimney Rock Trail and Scott Valley Road to be transferred to the SOA.

8.d.  Padovan Consulting Agreement  –  A Master Service Agreement proposal from Padovan Consulting LLC, for continuance of professional engineering services to the SOA at a billing rate of $140/hour, with material costs reimbursed at cost plus 10%.

8.e.  P-Card Resolution, Club Manager  –  Authorization of  US Bank Purchase Card for TCTC Club Manager, Camille Porter, subject to a purchase limit of $1.000/month and $500/transaction.

8.f.  Revised TCTC Rules and Regulations  –  Adds the following provision with regard to Amenity Reservations: “Management reserves the right to issue a two-week suspension of amenity privileges for any resident who has no-call, no-showed for amenity reservations more than twice in a row.”

8.g. Formation of a Community Events Committee –  No background information in Board Meeting Packet. Most likely just a discussion on the need.

8.h.  Stage Remodel Change Order  –  The Board previously approved a $51K proposal to convert TCTC gym stage into a fitness room. This item addresses a $10,544 change order to add rubber flooring and mirrors.

Comment: This Donovan Contracting, Inc proposal is identified as Change Order 6. Does this imply that there have been five previous change orders? If so, it would be interesting to know how much this project has escalated from the original $51K.

8.i.  NRS 116.31087, Homeowner Complaint regarding Board actions  –  No background information on this Agenda item was contained within the Board Meeting Packet.

Comment: NRS 116.31087 addresses the right of owners to have certain complaints placed on the agenda, usually associated with an allegation that the Board has violated one, or more, of the Associations governing documents. Since the Agenda did not identify the subject of the complaint, i.e., the normal process, we will just have to wait and see what the actual complaint is about.

As a further comment, as SU is sure the Board is aware, per NRS statutes the Agenda for a meeting of the Board must consist of “A clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting” and “A list describing the items on which action may be taken and clearly denoting that action may be taken on those items”. It appears to SU that the Board Meeting Agendas have become a little lax in this regard.

15 thoughts on “January 27th SOA Board Meeting

  1. Dear Jim Haar and Somersett United,

    With respect to you final paragraph: As you know, First Service Residential as a part of their property management duties prepares the agenda and notifications concerning board meetings. We rely on them because they hold the licenses and expertise to ensure such agendas meet the requirements of NRS.

    When the board has an item to be placed on the agenda it is described adequately to understand the background details. FSR then writes the agenda in a reasonably concise fashion as they have done for years.

    Nevertheless, I appreciate your concern. There is a current discussion about working with FSR to improve the descriptions for agenda items and expand the information placed in the Board “Packet”. At the Board meeting, some agenda items need a comprehensive examination of the topic, together with the ability to look at various options; and we don’t want to hamstring the business of the board purely because of “semantics” of an agenda item entry. Obviously we can’t write an entire paragraph on every agenda item so paraphrasing will always be necessary and ordinary.

    There’s also a practical matter to this. The agenda comes out 10 days before the board meeting and if there are ANY questions or if something is unclear then one should ask the question. An answer will be forthcoming. This makes more sense than standing up at a meeting and claiming that the board doesn’t have the right to conduct its business because the topic wasn’t announced clearly enough. This is where SU can help by getting it right instead of guessing it wrong.
    ——————–
    I’ve offered you and SU public kudos for what you do well and for what your blog offers that is valuable in this community. SU is a great repository for history and documents. But SU also has the potential to be a resource for the accurate reporting of current events. By checking for facts, you have the means to get it right!

    Case in point- Regarding the Firefly Court issue you write:
    “This issue, although not a significant one, has been ongoing for months now. Seems ample time for the SOA Board to meet with the SCA Board and come to a resolution.”
    Had you bothered to speak with us you would know that the SC Board is presently non-functioning and undergoing an election on February 10th. It’s not possible to meet with SC right now. You might also know there is an separate effort to discover if this pathway is a fire access road and we’re waiting for a response from authorities. You might appreciate that since inheriting this request in December we’ve done substantial and ongoing work on this issue, despite apparent issues blocking quick progress. What a shame you didn’t fill in those critical details, it would have made a more informed and interesting op/ed statement.

    —————-

    Sadly, I’m observing that articles on Somerset United have taken on a definite slant against the Board and the result on this site has been dissent, anger, and division. (Just look at the comments.) That’s a bit strange for a blog with “United” in its name. It’s one thing to call for reform, its quite another to encourage others to block and interfere with the business of the board on the basis of how something is worded. Or to call into question the certifications or qualifications of professional members of the AGC who have sat on that committee for months and months now as recognized professional members, getting paid by the SOA, and providing valuable professional contributions to Somersett. Suddenly because of a disagreement in policy these individuals go overnight from qualified to unqualified in conflict with the CC&R’s? These professionals are licensed and certified with the State and its a travesty to suggest they are unqualified in their allied physical fields. Take a stand for justice! SU has the potential to offer balance and perspective on pure politics, to calm emotions and not legitimize them. Are you up to that task, or will you join the fray and capitalize on controversy?

    The SOA Board is always responsive to questions so if there is a question then ASK, and get an answer BEFORE writing an article filled with guesses and uninformed statements, and doom and gloom projections for the future. Ask Ryan for reports and figures. It its about policy or agenda items then ask the board. Obtaining facts is the first responsibility of a journalist. The same should be true for a blogger.

    You live here and so do I. Let’s move forward together. Lets get on the same side of a positive direction whether or not we agree on all the issues. This is how we serve our homeowners and make progress toward a better Somersett. Its time for Somerset “United” to get to the business of “Uniting”.

    Thank you for including these comments.

    -Mark Capalongan
    SOA President

    1. Mark,
      First of all I would like to say that your comments are always welcome on SU. It is refreshing that a Board member would take the time to voice their opinions on the articles posted on this website or in reply to other owner comments.

      However, I would also like to say that your comments on the motivations behind SU’s posts are, in my mind, not justified. But that said, we all have our opinions, and SU will continue to post ours and you are welcome to post yours. So please keep them coming!

      Jim Haar – SU editor.

  2. Reply to posts :
    I think the point that is being missed after reading these lengthy explanations of your motivations and actions are:
    If you believe the AGC can function better and needs major overhaul, without the specified architect and engineer professionals; AND the AGC can better perform the duties under your knowledge (gained only after living here for less than 2 years) then commence the process of AMENDING the legal documents which are in force, to facilitate those changes to the AGC. The legal documents which state the role of the architect and engineer on the AGC include the PUD, Bylaws, CC&RS and Committee Charter will all need to be amended by homeowner approval.

    The language in NRS 116 (CHAPTER 116 – COMMON-INTEREST OWNERSHIP (UNIFORM ACT) Article 3 MANAGEMENT OF COMMON-INTEREST COMMUNITIES is very specific regarding the provisions as stated. As we all can understand, legal documents are lengthy and detailed because WORDS matter. The size of this Master Planned Community is more than 3000 homeowners of varying demographics so there are no simple solutions; ‘fairness’ and ‘consistency’ are lofty goals when the need exists to balance them against our governing documents which we’ve all signed to abide by.

    To make the statement “We spent somewhere near $40,000 on four professionals last year for advice on the committee to determine the size of crushed rock for landscaping, etc.” is trivializing the work of the AGC. The fact that you want to ignore the SOA legal docs AND the NRS and then go on defensive and deflect blame onto the Management company, and cite a NRS statute when convenient, is reason for those of us longer-term residents to be concerned.

    The eight motions which Bill introduced in the Dec 17 meeting (Agenda item 7L ‘Updated operating principles and protocols for the AGC and allowance for fast-track application process’) were not included in the final minutes possibly due to their length and complexity; but these would be helpful to read to more fully understand the mindset of our new leadership. Mark’s motion made in Agenda 7Q ‘New rules and procedures for enforcement of rules and violations dealing with compliance changes’ included ‘elimination of compliance drives, relying on homeowner complaints to locate violations’ was mentioned, however. While both sets of motions were tabled and then dismissed there is still cause for concern for the direction you want to take this community.

    The leadership of the AGC, the COMMUNITY STANDARDS enforcement reviews (taken over by previous Board) and the Board final reviews of Variance Appeals, are all now in the same hands so it is incumbent upon the homeowners to actively engage with you.

  3. It is good to see that the new Board is energetically looking at issues, problems and taken immediate steps to make changes to benefit the entire community.

    There has been a lot of “noisy discussion” around the AGC and the “aesthetics” of how our community looks today since construction has now taken on a modern contemporary look (compared to the “Tuscan” setting, given by colored concrete tiled conventional looking housing roofs).

    The previous Board eliminated the Community Standards Committee which concerned itself with aesthetics and how our community changes with time. Perhaps this committee should be reformed. At the moment (as others have pointed out) all decisions are ultimately now made by the Board. The CCR’s clearly lay out an appeals process for folks unhappy with the AGC’s suggestions, which is why at one time, Board members on the AGC did not vote … We relied on professionals who live outside our community to make decisions compliant with the Somersett PUD, CCRs and AGC guidelines, which could be appealed to the Board. Just because the community was upset with folks who lived at the “top” installing downlighting, which could be seen by those looking up, which interfered with our “dark skies” mandate; homeowners who built a “great” engineered walls on their property (now landscaped and blend in well), did not mean that AGC had not done their job properly! The Board even engaged in legal action against some homeowners to enforce compliance which proved costly (and was an ineffective remedy).

    The engineered walls built in the Cliffs and under construction in Brea (Village 1A) have a modern, sleek look, and will be very stable and maintenance free (other than any landscaping, irrigation). Contrast this with the giant “production toll box houses” built in the Boulders, many with outside long emergency fire escapes for all in our community to look at. They remind me of days when I lived in NYC and looked out at the apartment blocks around me, fire-escapes everywhere… Not esthetically appealing whatsoever, what is our Community Standards Committee (Board now) doing about this visual abomination in a luxury subdivision …

    The new Board rapidly settled our dispute concerning the “wonderful scenic looking” rockery walls with the “penniless” Private (outside the PUD) Golf Club, which I believe was a good thing…even though I would hesitate to describe this as a “win” for all the homeowners. And while I am discussing the rockery wall repairs, the Timaru Wall $2 million+ repair extravaganza looks really ugly – give me sleek modern looking engineered walls! Built to last!

  4. There is no such a thing as the Firefly (one word) Court Trail on any Somersett or County trail map I’ve ever seen (my latest personal copy is the Somersett one Revised July 2017 although I’ve had previous versions).

    This matter involves four neighboring lot owners: (a) SBE 64 Pointe LLC owner of the empty lot that is between 8740 Lockhaven Trail (a street and not an actual trail) and 8726 Lockhaven Court; the homeowners of the lots at (b) 1297 and (c) 1298 Firefly Court a cul-de-sac in Sierra Canyon (hereinafter SC); and (d) the SC Association, the owner of tiny empty lot between 1297 and 1298. The boundary of 1297 is shared with the SC lot, but not the SBE lot. The boundary of 1298 is shared with both the SC lot and the SBE lot.

    Essentially this is a matter between neighboring owners and for them to settle among themselves. The Somersett Owners Association does not own any relevant lots and therefore the SOA board should recuse itself and not be involved any more than it would between neighbors with teenagers arguing who will drive which car to an evening event.

    The empty SBE lot is too narrow to build upon. It also sits much lower than the 8740 and 8726 lots above its sides so walkers on it should not bother those neighbors.

    It would surprise me if the Larkhaven owners object to walkers using the empty lot below theirs as a passageway to get from the Ryder Homes Development into SC, or vice versa in order to continue walking on the respective sidewalks in those two developments. Foot traffic in either direction is a minimal number walkers a day. I have walked both Lockhaven and Firefly on numerous occasions, but not crossing from one to the other (almost daily in warmer months and not recently), and 99% of the time I am alone.

    I would guess 1297 and 1298 and the SC Association object to walkers walking too close to or on their respective property. A walker going from SC into the Ryder Homes Development has to walk on one of those three lots in order to get from SC onto the SBE lot and further into the Ryder Homes Development; or vice versa from the SBE lot if going from the Ryder Homes Development into SC. In either direction beyond there is no trail, just sidewalks.

    I believe that any property owner can put a barrier on his/her property line to prevent people from trespassing on their property.

    In this case possible solutions are:

    (1) The four lot owners agree trans walking is prohibited and create a legal document to that effect and have barriers to enforce;

    (2) SBE to erect a pleasant barrier across the Larkhaven end of their lot thus preventing passage from the Ryder Development to SC and vice versa; or at the other end where it would be encountered more quickly by walkers wanting to make the crossing.

    (3) SC to leave what they have already put up to hamper crossing from SC to Somersett and vice versa, i.e. dispute ended;

    (4) SC, 1297, 1298 and SBE to allow walkers on their respective property with perhaps SC installing a short asphalt walk with handrails on its lot as the ground is not flat – with any costs shared by the four property owners or SC does it along as a good neighbor;

    (5) SC, 1297, 1298 and SBE to have liability insurance to cover any falls by walkers.

    I’d love to have additional proposals posted here.

    1. Reply to Dogwalker Extraordinaire: ON the Somersett Major Trail System Plan figure 2-31A in the PUD Book 1, there is indicator of the trail or sidewalk link between Larkhaven and Firefly Ct. The previous SC Board planted the additional trees, installed irrigation and placed boulders (after the removal of a split rail fence and NO Trespassing signs) to block access between the two ‘neighborhoods’. Installation of a proper path will keep walkers off of the common area landscaping.

      1. Looking at the trail map on the Somersett website clearly shows a trail going through from SBE to Firefly court. Ryder owned the parcel (not buildable) and decided to put a paved “access” road down – a not inexpensive investment. Why would they do this unless they believed that the PUD/City required it?

        It is time for Somersett to have maps on their website and in their magazine that reflect the roads as they now are and not as conceived nearly 20 years ago!

        There are many inaccuracies in the trail map – perhaps the Board & First residential could take time to update it!

        1. Interestingly enough, one of the two homes adjacent to the trail at the end of Firefly Ct has posted “Private Property – No Trespassing” on a parcel of common/community property. One has to wonder where these folks came from, because it is NOT legal to post property you don’t have deed to, as such, in Nevada.

    2. The Trail map on the Somersett website – clearly indicates a trail between the VUE and Firefly Court. Unlike some trails it is unnamed.

  5. As the January 27th board meeting ran its course, things became extremely bizarre as the agenda progressed. There was a new agenda category added after the 3-minute homeowner comments that was nothing short of a board member opportunity to vent on any topic or issue they wished to and with no accommodation for rebuttals.

    The most interesting of these comments was from the SOA president when he suggested that anyone in the community that does not like the direction the board is taking, should hire an attorney and bring suit against the board. After reviewing the meeting and thinking on this comment for a few days, I cannot for the life of me figure out how this actually fits with the board wanting a happier and friendlier community.

    1. I’m afraid you got it wrong Vince.

      Its just a suggestion, but the recordings of Board meetings are online, and it’s a good idea to review those to ensure your impressions are correct to avoid making public statements that aren’t accurate.

      Association Members are free to criticize their board as is their right under the proper agenda item for homeowner forums, both at the beginning and at the end of each meeting. That affords you a total 6 minutes to complain about the “direction the board is taking.” I support that right wholeheartedly, let’s be clear on that.

      To be precise, what I said was that allegations brought against the board for misconduct under NRS procedures are serious charges, and before someone brings this kind of official complaint that they are advised to first obtain legal counsel. Do you see that distinction? It’s perfectly OK to complain in a comment under the open forum sections of the agenda. You have that right!

      HOWEVER, its quite a different matter to make a legal assertion under NRS whereupon its required to place such a charge as a separate emergency agenda item be addressed at the next Board meeting. My advice is specific: before you bring legal allegations against someone else especially using a codified legal mechanism, you are well advised to first seek the advice of counsel. Practical and sage advice!

      In this case when the emergency NRS agenda item came to the floor, this person never made their allegation at all, even when pressed. They reverted to “concerns” which they had already voiced earlier. This was an abuse of their right to create an emergency agenda item as required under NRS. It amounted to a false NRS accusation, it wasted everyone’s time, disrupted the normal business of the SOA, and needlessly harmed both the accused and the accuser with frivolous and nonspecific NRS claims.

      The “Board Members Comments Section” of the agenda isn’t new as you claim. Please review past agendas of board meetings because you will see that there has ALWAYS been an agenda item for “Board member comments”. Apparently NRS allows not only for homeowners to complain against the Board, but also for Board Members to speak to issues of concern. If you review the recording, you will also see that I used my Board member comment time to clear up some misunderstandings regarding actions taken or not taken at prior board meetings. I hope that dispels some misunderstandings about inspections and AGC, and I mapped out a slower pace for changes that involved more homeowner notification and participation. Frankly it was good news for those who are worried about changes in Somersett.

      Finally a “Happier and more Friendly Community” is a joint effort and we must all do our part. Ask yourself if constantly railing against your Board in public forums is accomplishing that goal. There are so many constructive ways to get involved.

      Regards,
      -Mark Capalongan

      1. Mark,

        In your reply to Mr. Loving, you started that “before you bring legal allegations against someone else especially using a codified legal mechanism, you are well advised to first seek the advice of counsel. Practical and sage advice!” However, I do not consider this as practical and sage advice. Under NRS 116.31087 owners have the right to have a complaint placed on the agenda if they believe a violation of the Associations governing documents has occurred, obviously it should reference the provision(s) alleged to have been violated, and given the timing provisions of NRS 116.31087 this could hardly be classified as “an emergency agenda item

        Further, to classify such allegations as an abuse, false accusation, or frivolous is not for you to judge. The owner has every right to his/her interpretations of the Governing Documents and if they feel they have been violated, this is their only mechanism to bring it before the Board for action. Simply giving a comment at the beginning or end of the meeting does not warrant any action on the part of the Board.

        With regard to first obtaining an opinion from an Attorney, this is one reason why the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) office of the Ombudsman was created. To quote from their website “The office was created to assist homeowners and board members in common interest communities to better understand their rights and obligations under the law and their governing documents”. That is, it provides homeowners a method to seek assistance in resolving an alleged violation of an Associations governing documents without having to seek council or file a lawsuit, which we all know could be an expensive process. The process for filing a complaint with the Ombudsman requires some very reasonable prerequisites, which are well defined under NRS 116.760 and requires that the Board first be notified and allowed an opportunity to respond.

        BTW, I have been attending Board meetings since moving here in 2004 and have never witnessed any significant abuse of this process by homeowners. That is, alleging a violation for the purpose of wasting everyone’s time, disrupting the normal business of the SOA, and needlessly harming both the accused and the accuser.

        Jim Haar – SU Editor

        1. Thanks Jim.

          The point that you missed is that when someone brings an NRS complaint and when it is then added as a required item on the meeting agenda, then they need to be specific as to what provision of NRS was violated and when given their right to an agenda item and the floor they need to proceed to bring that complaint.

          In this case when the given the agenda item came up and when this person was given the floor to make their case, they did not make any NRS complaint at all, rather used that time to make yet another “comment of concern.” This person spoke at both of the homeowner forums to the meeting and also at the special agenda item regarding the NRS complaint (which was never made). That’s monopolizing the Board meeting for a total of 10 minutes, and clearly an abuse of the rights and obligations under NRS. Whether or not this was intentional, it had the effect of wasting everyone’s time and falsely represented an accusation in order to gain control over the agenda and get the floor.

          So in my opinion and as I interpret this situation, I am making a personal plea that when you exercise your rights and bring an NRS complaint, it is a good idea (sage advice) to know your rights and responsibilities first. Clearly some may benefit from legal counsel.

          I think that’s a reasonable request and in keeping with the intent of the law.

          Where shall we go with this? Will all board meetings become a stage where a constant barrage of complaints are made to no positive effect?

          Perhaps Jim, it time for a town hall discussion once a month where anyone can voice their concern and receive a response from a board member(s). We can air our grievances and discuss the issues WITHOUT disrupting the business of the Board Meetings. I fear that we’ve created a situation where a few people can turn every Board meeting into a bitch session.

          There’s a better way.

          1. Reply to Mark: first of all, let me state that when I first submitted a request for my complaint to be placed On the January 27 mtg agenda, the first response was it will be placed on the February 10 agenda. The NRS 116.31087 statute states the homeowner complaint must be placed in the next regular meeting agenda; so this was subsequently corrected. I addressed my comments regarding the agenda item at the beginning as the law states. I did not expect to be called upon when the actual agenda item came up, as this is not the normal course in the board meetings. However unexpected as it was, the opportunity to reiterate my point was taken, and I apologize for wasting ‘everyone’s’ time with my ‘b****’. Your condescending tone is noted once again.

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