October 27th SOA Board Meeting Recap

recap 1

Following is a summary of discussions and actions taken by the Board at the October 27th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Special Board Meeting. The complete Meeting Agenda may be accessed below. For background information on some of the agenda items see  SU’s previous post of October 25, 2021 entitled:   “October 27th SOA Board Meeting Info”.

October 27, 2021 Board Meeting Agenda

A summary of Board actions/discussions on agenda items follow. Readers interested in the complete proceedings may access the following Zoom Video Conference recording link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r-IZjnRAKs8wdkk7wqFqQUi0Rddh8VM3/view?usp=sharing

2.  Homeowner Comments on Agenda Items:

  • Per Agenda Item 3.f, the Technology Advisory Committee requested Board approval for the expenditure of $197K for the purchase of security gate cameras and associated equipment from Pacific States Communications. A Homeowner suggested that this action is premature based on: 1) A Nevada Law that states purchases of this size require the solicitation of competitive bids to be opened at a Board Meeting and this action has not been performed; 2) the Technology Committee report identified several unresolved issues associated with the project, and given this project in not time sensitive, why not resolve them before the authorization of funds; 3) This total project will most likely deplete the “Gate Equipment” reserves, how will hey be made up?
  • With regard to item 3.c, “Acceptance of Streets and Gates from The Cliffs”, an owner questioned if the Board has considered the posting of a five year performance bond from Toll Brothers? Also under item 3.g., “Agreement for Comprehensive Landscaping Services”, will this include vendor services for an aggressive fire fuel abatement program, and addressed the need for such.  Board response was: 1) Toll Brothers has a common area performance bond with City and the SOA will not require a separate bond: 2) The Landscape contractor will have some responsibilities regarding incidental clean-up of fire fuel, but the SOA will employ a separate vendor for more aggressive clean-up, and this is covered under a separate budget item.

3.  Special Meeting Items:

3.a.  Review and Approve Policy Regarding late Fees  –  There was a concern that, due to the SOA’s transition to a different accounting system, some delays may be inadvertently encountered requiring an amendment to the SOA policy on collection of late fees.  Review concluded a change was not required.

3.b.  Transition Update  –  The SOA’s soon to be Community Manager, Nancy Kerry, provided her usual update, indicated everything was in place for the November 1st management turnover from FirstServices Residential and summarized how we got here. Some Board members also offered their comments. If interested in the details, the reader is referred to the video recording referenced above.

3.c. Discussion, Legal Analysis, and Acceptance of Streets and Gates of the Cliffs Subdivision from Toll Brothers –  Toll Brothers has demanded that the SOA accept turnover of “The Cliffs” Streets and Gates no later than November 1, 2021 or face litigation via the Courts. It had previously been the Boards position not to accept turnover of partial common area parcels but to wait until turnover of all common areas from the Developer. Upon consultation with the SOA attorney it was determined that, to avoid expensive litigation , the SOA accept turnover subject to stringent conditions. These being the following: 1) Acceptance of the SOA’s Policy on turnover of common areas from Developers; 2) Completion of the  “punch list” items identified by the SOA Engineer; 3) Indemnification against any damage caused by Toll Brothers construction traffic; and 4) Recognition that acceptance of the Streets and Gates does not compromise any of the SOA’s rights with regard to acceptance of future common area turnovers (e.g., hillsides and ditches).  With regard to these conditions: 1) Generation of a  turnover policy was required, which was prepared by the SOA Attorney and approved by the Board;  2) The SOA punch list was given to Toll Brothers who will be working on them; 3) Toll Brothers had already proposed an indemnification provision; and 4) Toll brothers, in a letter to the Board, has acknowledged continued responsibly for the balance of the common areas. It is anticipated that Toll Brothers will agree to the SOA conditions, upon which the Board voted to accept responsibility (turnover) for The Cliffs Streets and Gates. The provisions of the “Turnover Policy” were read at the meeting. The reader is referred to the video recording referenced above for details.

3.d.  Review and Approval of Holiday Lighting  –  The Board accepted the Lawn Express proposal  for SOA Holiday Lighting at $24,500, which was competitive to BrightView’s $23,296 and Sierra Christmas Lights $80,700. Lawn Express was also selected based on their past performance as the SOA’s Holiday Lighting vendor.  Given that this amount was significantly higher than the previous year (i.e., $15,600), Board member Jacob Williams volunteered to see if he could negotiate a lower price with Lawn Express. (Note: Subsequent to the  meeting, Jacob met with Lawn Express and negotiated a price of $17,600 – kudos to Jacob)

3.f.  Review and Approve Security Camera, Phone System and Gate Proposals:

In June the Board opened three proposals for security camera additions and upgrades for the Town Center. This included both indoor (TCTC) and outdoor cameras. Quotes ranged from $45.8K to $67.5K. The Board referred these to the newly formed Technology Review Committee for evaluation. The Committees recommendation was to proceed with the Pacific States Communications proposal at $57K.  In their evaluation, the Committee also looked at the security gate camera systems, knowing that these were also in need of upgrading, and whatever decisions were made, it did not make sense to go with two different vendors with two different technologies. Hence the request for the approval of the $197K for a compatible Pacific States solution for the fifteen SOA security gates, which the Board could not act on at this time due to process constraints.

After much discussion on these agenda items, which primarily centered on the complexity associated with the Gates camera, access and communication systems, the Board approved the following:

      • The Pacific States proposal ($57K) for upgrading the Town Center camera system.
      • $15K for a “Demonstration System” using the Pacific States solutions to be implemented at one of the SOA’s security gates.
      • Switching from a month to month to a yearly contract with ATT for gate communication lines, which reportedly will save the Association approximately $20K/year.
      • A new Phone System for TCTC  at a $600 one time fee and $357/month,  a savings over the current system.

3.g.  Review and Approval of Agreement for Comprehensive Landscaping Services – The Board unanimously approved using Reliance Grounds Management (i.e., over BrightView and Reno Green) as the SOA’s new landscape contractor.  In doing so each Board member commented on his reasons for doing so. Reliance was also the low bidder based on the following price evaluations: Reliance – $1.5M, BrightView – $1.6M and Reno Green – $1.8M.

3.h.  Personnel Policy for Cell Phones and Mileage –  The Board adopted a new Policy relating to employee use of personal cell phones and autos in conducting SOA business. This policy allotted phone reimbursement at $75/month for salaried employees and 65% of actual not to exceed $75/month for non-salaried. Mileage reimbursement to be at the federal rate established by the IRS.

4.   Homeowner Comments on any Topic:

  • A Homeowner commented on: 1) The need for and if Lawn Express would be using licensed electricians to oversee the installation of the proposed Holiday Lighting, 2) Does turnover of The Cliffs Gates include a compatible camera system to be installed by Toll Brothers and 3) Sierra Canyon landscape issues related to their own landscape contractor.
  • A Homeowner brought to the Boards attention the hillside erosions and street debris encountered at The Cliffs as a result of the recent storm, and wanted to emphasize there are still runoff and street issues within the Development.

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