Following is a recap of topics discussed and/or approved at the April 28th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (Board) Meeting. Only three Board members were in attendance (Board member Baker was missing and there is an open slot due to Board member Hanson’s resignation). Homeowner presence was low with only 11 participants.
The reader is referred to SU’s previous post of April 24th, 2021 “April 28th SOA Board Meeting” for a copy of the Meeting Agenda and supporting information derived from the Board Meeting Packet, which is available on the SOA website (http://www.somersett.org) under the “SOA Board and Committees/The Board of Directors/2021 links. Following is a meeting summary, with Agenda items noted.
2. Homeowner Comments on Agenda Items
There were no Homeowner comments on agenda items.
3. April 14th, 2021 BOD Meeting Minutes
The minutes of the April 14th Board meeting were approved with no amendments. See SU Post of April 18th, “April 14th SOA BOD Meeting Recap” for a summary of the April 14th meeting.
4. Committee Reports
4.a. Budget and Finance – No Report
4.b. Communication – 1) New signage for the Canyon9 golf course has been completed and will be installed by May 1st, which is also the date at which Canyon9 will be no longer public, but open to residents and quests only. 2) Twelve ompanies have expressed interest in advertising on the SOA website. 3) Photo contest entries have been printed and will be displayed at TCTC. A gallery of these photos will be published on the SOA website for voting on by residents. Prizes have yet to be announced. 4) The new Zen Planner reservation system for TCTC is about eady to go. Emails with instructions for downloading the app and creating new passwords will be sent to all residents currently using the old system.
4.c. Strategic & Facilities – The speed survey devices installed on the Somersett Parkway and Back Nine Trail locations did not indicate a systemic problem that would support the installation of speed calming devices, at least in the mind of the City of Reno. However, being a private street, Back Nine Trail speed calming devices could still be installed at the discretion of the SOA. Also, that the results of the pedestrian survey at Roundabout 3 did not support installation of pedestrian crossing safety devices.
4.d. West Park Garden – All plots have been assigned and two orientation sessions conducted. Additional rabbit fencing is being installed. The seed packet fund raiser has been extended thtough May.
4.e. Community Events – A plug for the Car Show scheduled for July 10th at the Town Center. Residents are encouraged to participate by signing up (four have already done so) on the Somersett website. There was also a budget concern implying that the Commirtee’s planned events may need additional funding. This to be discussed at the next Board meeting.
5. Financials – No report
6. Unfinished Business
6.a Legal Updates – On the SOA’s Rockery Wall lawsuit against the Somersett Development Company, et al. it was reported that the oral arguments scheduled for May 4th may be available online through the Court’s website system. On the Preston Homes Rockery Wall lawsuit against the SOA (see SU Post of April 20th “Preston Homes Lawsuit Against the SOA”), it was reported that the SOA’s insurance company will handle the litigation.
6.b. 1880 Dove Mountain, Common Area Slope Repair – It was reported that a new design for the rockery wall repair/placement has been generated, but that only one vendor is willing to do the work, perhaps by early/mid June, no cost data was presented. Also, that BrightView will be submitting a proposal for landscaping the slope and that other contractors may be involved before project completion, which has been on-going for over a year now.
6.c. Snack Bar Update – The Snack Bar Lease Agreement with the Peavine Taphouse has been signed and insurance obtained. The required equipment list has been adjusted but not yet purchased. This not an issue as it encompasses readily available equipment. A “plug” was put in for the May 20th Poolside Spring Social featuring live music, beer and wine, plus a showcase of food selections from the new summer pool menu. Price is $20 with limited space, residents may register on-line via the Somersett website. Options for posting signs advertising this and other special events were discussed.
7. New Business
7.a. Village at the Greens Common Area Turnover – A walkthrough of the property uncovered a few minor items that need addressing. Board tabled turnover approval until the next Board meeting.
7.b. Proganix Soil Proposal for “The Cut” Hill Side Stabilizer – This pertains to the East entrance hillside. Apparently when the rock fall mitigation work was performed, a test area was hydro-seeded with a grass-matte ground cover product. This proposal (cost not revealed) is to do more of the same on other areas of the hillside, which would require some irrigation to support. Concerns were raised on the following issues: 1) grass could create a fire-fuel hazard for the homes on the top of the hill, and 2) given the steep slope, irrigation could loosen the soil creating the potential for both grass and rocks sliding down the hill. Proposal was declined.
7.c. Pool Equipment Proposal – This $12K proposal from the SOA pool maintenance vendor, Lee Joseph Inc., covers the purchase of spare parts to be placed within SOA inventory. Purpose is to cirmcumvent extended shutdown of the TCTC pools due to equipment failure and the time to locate and purchase replacement equipment. Discussion focused on the following issues: 1) The SOA could save $3K if bought ourselves rather than through Lee Joseph. 2) If bought ourselves, Lee Joseph would not warrant its installation. 3) for an additional fee, have Lee Joseph quarantee availability of replacement parts from their inventory. 4) A concern that SOA purched parts could become obsolete before usage. Proposal was tabled to allow Board member Williams to consult with Lee Joseph regarding item 3.
7.d. TCTC Server Upgrade Proposal – This $21K proposal from Logically to upgrade the SOA’s network server architecture was also tabled. This to address the questions as to why the current system is outdated and what will the SOA gain from the upgrade? Also to explore other options such as moving to a “cloud” server architecture, which, although subscription based, could be less costly than our current server support services.
7.e. Review of Approved Plants and Mulches Used in Somersett – This agenda item in response to homeowner requests and suggestions for looking into and modifying approved plans for trees (availability issues), plants (fire-fuel concerns), use of rocks ( size issues), etc. Discussed doing a survey of landscape companies doing business in Somersett for their input on these issues. Decided to refer to the AGC to look over owner suggestions.
8. Board Member Comments
A statement of appreciation to Dave Alexander for his recent service on both the Facilities and Finance committees.
A discussion initiated by Board member O’Donnell on mechanisms in place for the Board, or a Board member, to initiate an emergency action. GM Fields responded with a summary of in-place mechanisms.
9. Homeowner Comments (paraphrsed with apologies for any misstatements)
A suggestion to consider formation of an owner committee to address item 7.e, rather than refer to the AGC and its “paid” consultants. Response was that the Board has no intent to pay AGC members to look into this inssue, rather they are leaning to surveying landscape contractors doing business in Somersett.
A question as to what process (i.e., appointment, leave vacant or hold a special election) the Board will pursue in filling the open Board position. Response was no formal decision yet. However, if interpreting Board comments correctly, SU believes the leave vacant until the next annual election cycle option will prevail.
A request from a Toll Brothers representative that the the SOA accept turnoner to the SOA of the streets and gates at The Ridge. Basis being that Toll Brothers are paying full Private Gates and Streets assessments to the SOA on 120 lots, but in addition, are also paying for street snow removal and gate maintenance costs on these streets due to the SOA not accepting turnover. Apparently a past request was denied as long as construction was on-going. Therefore, Toll Brothers feel they are paying the SOA for a benefit that are not receiving. The representative advised that Toll Brothers would be willing to indemnify the SOA for any damage caused by construction traffic. The Board appeared to be a little taken back by this request and advised they needed to look into the turnover process and past actions.
SU felt this request via the “homeowner” comment portion of a Board meeting to be a bit strange and out of place. Was this representative a Ridge owner or a Toll Brothers employee? Perhaps both.