February 10th BOD Meeting Recap

Following is a recap of topics discussed and/or approved at the February 10th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (Board) Meeting, held via a Zoom Video Conference with Association members.  The reader is referred to SU’s Post of  February 7, 2021 “February 10th BOD Meeting” for a copy of the Meeting Agenda and supporting information derived from the Board Meeting Packet. Agenda Items are noted.

2.  Homeowner Comments on Agenda Items

 There were no Homeowner comments on agenda items

 3.  January 27, 2012 BOD Meeting Minutes

The Draft Meeting Minutes were approved, For those interested, the meeting minutes for the January 27th Board Meeting are contained in the Board Meeting Packet referenced above, which is available on the SOA website (www.somersett.org) under the SOA Documents/Board Documents/2021 link. Alternately, one may access SU’s previous post of January 31tst entitled “January 27th BOD Meeting Recap” for a summary of what was discussed and/or approved.

 4.  Committee Reports

No Committee reports were submitted. Generally due to Committee meetings being scheduled subsequent to the February 10th Board Meeting date. Reports are expected to be submitted for the upcoming February 24th Board Meeting.

 5.  Financials

Same comment as under Agenda Item 4 above.

 6.  Unfinished Business

6.a.  Legal Updates  –  No update on either the Somersett Development Company or Preston Homes lawsuits. However, it was reported that the Preston Homes lawsuit is nearing resolution with results possibly available by the February 24th Board meeting. The Somersett Development Company Rockery Wall lawsuit is still waiting a decision from the Appellate Court, no legal fees are being encountered.

6.b.  Slurry Seal Proposals  –  Two companies submitted bids for slurry sealing of the SOA private streets both with and without the inclusion of Huntley Road (see note below). The Board approved acceptance of the Sierra Nevada Construction bid (excluding Huntley Road) of $73.3K. This over an Inter Mountain Slurry Seal Inc. bid of $96.5K. Funds to come from SOA reserves, for which $89K had been allocated. There was a discussion as to why only two bids were received. The answer being that the number of local companies that perform Type 2 slurry sealing (as required by the SOA) was very limited.

 Note:  Exclusion of Huntley Road from the slurry seal process was due to the fact that this street had been turned over to the SOA by Ryder Homes in December 2020 and accepted as street worthy.

 6.c.  The Board approved issuance of a Purchase Card to be used by the TCTC Club Manager for the purchase of incidentals. Card carries a limit of $500/transaction and $1000/month.

6.d.  1880 Dove Mountain Common Area Hillside Slope Repair  –  Previous bids received for this work were rejected at the January 27th Board meeting due to an erroneous bid process. Rather than re-bidding the project as proposed, the Board contracted with Stanka Consulting for further analyses on the project. Stanka has issued a report which apparently identified an alternate solution from the one previously proposed, which potentially could save the Association  $30K – $50K. Project will be re-engineered  and re-bid. Meanwhile the split rail fence that had been improperly erected on the common area hillside was being moved to owner property where it belonged.

 7.  New Business

 7.a.  Reinstatement of the West Park Committee  –  The Board approved to reinstate the West Park Committee. This Committee had been disbanded following City of Reno turnover of the Park to the SOA for operation and maintenance.  However, this was determined premature given ongoing issues with the City of Reno. It was not clear as to whether or not the West Park Garden Committee would remain separate.

7.b.  Garden Committee Fundraising Request  –  The West Park Garden Committee was seeking Board approval to conduct a fundraising exercise on the SOA website and e-newsletter. This to raise funds for materials deemed necessary but not originally provided for by the City of Reno. The Committee would engage an outside service (ABC Fundraising) to conduct the activity, which would consist of the selling of flower seed packets. Discussion centered on three areas: 1) ABC’s cut of the revenue, 2) whether or not the fundraising activity would even be required given the ongoing discussions with the City of Reno over Park funds that are still available, and 3) the SOA’s role, or non-role, in funding activities related to city owned property.  It was subsequently assessed that Committee fundraising and the availability of City funds were not mutually exclusive, therefore, use of the SOA website and e-newsletter to support fundraising was approved.

7.c.  Snow Removal Rules for Sidewalks on Homeowner Lots and Common Areas  –  A discussion on sidewalk snow removal requirements placed on homeowners as opposed to sidewalks on common area properties, this with regard to the SOA public roads plowed by the City of Reno. It was unclear to this observer as to what exactly the problem is here, who is responsible for what (City, Association, Owner), and what rules should be enforced or not enforced.  After much discussion, the topic was tabled pending additional information, not only on Association rules and regulations, but City of Reno rules and regulations as well.

 8.  Board Member Comments

Board member Jacob Williams addressed the issue of owner sidewalk damage caused by the improper planting of trees by the original Developers.  Original thought was that perhaps some financial relief here could be provided by the Association. However, it was deemed as not possible. Although an unfortunate situation, this involves owner property, i.e., not SOA property, for which the owner is solely responsible. The Board did offer assistance to affected owners in reaching a collective solution that could save on expenses.

 9.  Homeowner Comments

Note: The Zoom Video conference format enables attendees to engage in “chat” comments during the course of the meeting, which the Board can see, but cannot respond to. Therefore, owners who want to make an “official” comment to the Board should do so at this time.

  •  An owner requested installation of additional dog poop stations along Evening Rock Trail and again addressed the issue of speeding along the Parkway, especially between Roundabouts 4 and 5.

 Board member Jacob Williams responded to this comment with the news that he has been meeting with the City of Reno to address the speeding concern. He advised that 1) installation of “speed bumps” are not allowed and therefore cannot be entertained, but 2) they are very open to implementing more speed calming devices (e.g., flashing lights, speed monitoring boards) along the Parkway. This will be added as an agenda item at the next Board meeting where he hopes to have some proposals and costs for discussion and what speed surveys may be required.

  •  An owner commented that 2-3 inches of snow on a sidewalk was actually safer to walk on than one cleared down to the concrete and iced over, and the “compliance police” should be somewhat lenient here.

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