SGCC 2019 Financial Summary

Given the Somersett Owners Association’s (SOA) investment and liabilities associated with the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC) Purchase and Lease Agreements, the SOA has a vested interest in the financial health of the SGCC and hence of interest to Association members. Since the SGCC’s financial data is not made available to Association members through any other media, it has been SU’s practice to publish what what is publicly available, hence the following update.

The following table represents a summary of the Somersett Golf & Country Club’s (SGCC) revenue and expense data for the years following turnover from the Somersett Developer to its Equity Members in 2010. The table has been updated to include the 2019 financials. All financial data contained in the following table are derived from the SGCC’s IRS Form 990’s, which require submittal by May 15th of the following year (July 15th 2020 for 2019 financials) and become available for public inspection. The SOA Revenue Column represent monies provided to the SGCC from SOA funds as indicated by the corresponding “Notes”.

Year SGCC Equity Members * SGC Total Revenue SGC Total Expenses Revenue Less Expenses SOA Revenue Contribution ** Notes
2010 188 1,990,652 2,550,940 -560,288 0 1
2011 152 2,087,950 2,715,815 -627,865 0 2
2012 129 2,645,620 2,613,692 +31,928 435,000 3, 4
2013 115 2,918,754 2,815,109 +103,645 440,000 4
2014 194 2,729,114 2,695,062 +34,052 360,000 4
2015 220 995,670 2,581,250 -1,585,580 2,750,000 5,6
2016 241 2,611,329 2,664,450 -53,121 0  
2017 256 2,957,651 3,030,659 -73,008 0  
2018 293 3,149,162 3,257,636 -108,474 0  
2019 274 3,152,660 3,302,604 -149,944 0  

*  Represents full proprietary membership with voting rights, does not include non-permanent, provisional or preview memberships

** SOA Revenue Contribution does not include Canyon9 Maintenance Agreements with the SGCC which ran through 2017 at then $309K annually. The SGCC no longer provides this maintenance service as it was awarded to others on a cost saving basis for 2018 & 2019.

Table Notes:

  1. In the Fall of 2010, the Somersett Development Company negotiated early turnover of the SGCC to its Equity Members via Member majority vote.
  2. 2011 was the first year in which the SGCC was run entirely by Equity Members.
  3. In late 2011, the Developer controlled SOA Board voted to divert $15/month of homeowner assessments to the SGCC via a “Lease Agreement” in exchange for some SGCC access amenities. This agreement was to run for three years starting in January 2012 with optional 3 and 4-year renewal periods. The obvious purpose being to subsidize the SGCC’s operating losses.
  4. The SOA Revenue column represents revenue the SGCC received in years 2012, 2013 and 2014 from the SOA under the Lease Agreement described in Note 3 above. 2014 was the last year under this agreement after being declared improper by the Nevada Real Estate Board. It is interesting to note that these were the only years the SGCC did not have an operating loss.
  5. As a replacement for the aforementioned Lease Agreement, in late 2014, a SGCC Real Property Purchase and Lease Agreements were approved by SOA owner majority vote. Under this agreement, the SOA purchased the SGCC land and water rights for $2,750,000 with a subsequent leaseback of the land and water rights to the SGCC at a base rate of $1000/year (subject to escalation) plus a fixed rent amount of $1200/year. Lease term is for 50 years with two SGCC optional 20-year renewal periods. The SOA purchase funds were obtained via an ongoing bank loan currently being paid for from homeowner assessments.
  6. The SGCC 2015 negative revenue less expense amount was primarily due to the $2,750.000 sale price income (see Note 5) minus a reported sales expense (asset loss) of $4,294,781.

For those interested in the revenues and expense details by category, the SGCC’s complete 2019 Form 990 may be accessed via the following link:

SGCC 2019 Form 990

Comments on the Preceding:

  1. After five years of moderate equity member growth, 2019 showed a decrease of 19 equity members over 2018. It is unknown what the membership level is to date, but given the COVID-19 scenario, it is problematic that this decrease will by made up for in 2020..
  2. Also evident is that the SGCC’s operating loss has been steadily increasing since the loss of the SOA revenue contributions. That is, from 2016 and beyond. For those interested in comparisons, Prior year SGCC Form 990’s may be accessed via the following links:  SGCC 2018 Form 990SGCC 2017 Form 990SGC 2016 Form 990, SGCC-2015-Form-990
  3. Yet to be determined is SGCC’s financial liability under the SOA lawsuit filed against the SGCC for their share of the Rockery Wall failure repairs
  4. Also, to be determined is the SGCC’s future liabilities associated with required repair/replacement of the Canyon9 and SGCC Water Supply System components, which have been estimated as high as $700K over the next five years, of which the major responsibilities lie with the SGCC.

What does the Future Hold?

Given the SGCC’s apparent current financial doldrum, and given a negative financial outcome (i.e., for the SGCC) with regard to items 3 and 4 above, it is fair to ask what does the future of the SGCC hold?  If indeed the Court rules that the SGCC has violated the provisions of the Purchase and Lease Agreements with a significant dollar liability to the SGCC, and they do not have the resources to pay their financial obligations thereunder, what recourse will the SOA pursue? Does the Board have a plan in place? Not that anyone is aware of.

SOA Response to SGCC Counterclaim

On June 5th the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) filed a legal Complaint (Washoe County District Court Case No. CV20-00872) against the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC or SCC)) addressing two issues: 1) Liability for Rockery Wall failure repairs, and 2) Liability for Water Well Pump repairs.

This Complaint, along with an accessible copy of the legal filing, was summarized in a previous SU post of July 22nd, which may be accessed via the following link;

SOA Legal Complaint Against the SGCC

On July 10th, the SGCC submitted both a Response and Counterclaim the SOA Complaint. The SGCC Response and Counterclaim, along with an accessible copy of the legal filing, was summarized in a previous SU post of July 23rd, which may be accessed via the following link:

SGCC Response and Counterclaim to SOA Complaint

The SGCC Counterclaim was based on the following five courses of action, which were discussed in the SU post of July 23rd referenced above.

  1. Premises/Liability/Negligence
  2. Misrepresentation/Lease
  3. Breach of Implied Covenant/Lease Agreement
  4. Breach of Tolling Agreement
  5. Quantum Meruit

In their Counterclaim, the SGCC basically accused  the SOA of misconduct, misrepresentation and withholding of information (i.e. implied fraud?) when entering into the Lease Agreement, and therefore seeks its own damages and re-formation of the Agreement.

On July 31st the SOA filed its legal response to the SGCC Counterclaim, which may be accessed via the following link:

SOA Response to SGCC Counterclaim CV20-00872

In its response, the SOA contends that the first three SGCC allegations are “Too Vague For The Association To Answer Properly” and that the fifth is “Too Ambiguous That The Association Is Not Able To Respond To Its Allegations” (the 4th item was not included in the SOA response). This is not to say the SOA ignored them, quite the contrary, they provided the basis under which they could not provide a proper response. Basically, that the SGCC did not provide the “particularity” of the circumstances behind their allegations as required by law (i.e., no set of facts to substantiate their counterclaims). The SOA concludes its response with the following statement:

“Based on the foregoing, the Association asks this Court to require more definite statements regarding the four causes of action indicated here; a finding that SCCs misrepresentation claim is not plead with appropriate particularity pursuant to NRCP 9(b); and outright dismissal of the misrepresentation claim for failure to plead the essential element of duty.”

The SOA response makes interesting reading and, in SU’s opinion, paints the SGCC allegations as a desperate act to avoid their obligations under both the Purchase and Lease Agreements.

SGCC Response and Counterclaim to SOA Complaint

In our previous Blog Post entitled “SOA Legal Complaint Against the SGCC”, SU summarized  the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Complaint (allegations) against the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC) along with an accessible copy of the Court filing document. On July 10th 2010, the SGCC provided its legal response to the SOA’s allegations along with a Counterclaim.  A complete copy of the SGCC’s legal filing may be accessed via the following link:

SGCC Response and Counterclaim, CV20-00872

Response to SOA Complaint

The SGCC response addressed all 103 of the numbered paragraphs in the SOA Complaint, most of which were just boiler plate. With regard to the paragraphs of substance, the SGCC basically denied all of the SOA’s allegations (summarized in previous Post) and offered up the following “Affirmative Defenses” (edited and paraphrased, not direct quotes).

  1. The SOA failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
  2. The SOA’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches (i.e., unreasonable delay in filing the Complaint).
  3. By its actions, the SOA has waived its claims against the SGCC.
  4. Because of its actions, the SOA should be estopped (prohibited) from asserting its claims, including the destruction of evidence relevant to the SGCC’s defense.
  5. The SOA’s own actions contributed to and exceeded any alleged breach on the part of the SGCC and the SOA’s damages, if any, should be reduced or denied by reason of the SOA’s negligent acts and omissions.
  6. The SOA failed to mitigate its damages and any recovery should be offset by the amount the SOA could have mitigated such damage.
  7. The actions and conduct of the SOA and other unnamed third parties acted as an intervening and superseding cause of any damages the SOA may have suffered, thus eliminating liability on the part of the SGCC.
  8. Defendant has made payments to the SOA ($500/month during the Tolling Agreement period) the amount of which should offset any amounts due the SOA by reason of its Complaint.
  9. The SGCC has expended effort, time and money to repair a portion of the damaged area, the value of which should be offset against any amounts due to the SOA.
  10. Some of the SGCC’s efforts to comply with both the Lease and Water facilities Agreements were impractical, if not impossible – Force Majure (an unforeseeable circumstance that prevents someone from fulfilling a contract).

Based on the preceding, the SGCC is seeking the following Judgements from the Court:

  1. An order dismissing the SOA’s Complaint and directing that the SOA recover no damages whatsoever.
  2. An order determining the value of payments made to the SOA and work performed by the SGCC and offsetting this against any sums due to the SOA.
  3. An order awarding costs, attorney fees and such other relief as the Court deems proper.

SGCC Counterclaim

The SGCC Counterclaim addressed the following Causes of Action ( edited and paraphrased, not direct quotes unless so indicated):

  1. Premises/Liability/Negligence – The SGCC contends that the SOA was aware there were problems with the Common Area above the SGCC’s leased property that constituted a dangerous condition and “failed to take appropriate measures to either discover the magnitude of the dangerous condition and/or make the condition safe and/or warn the SGCC of the condition and potential danger, all of which caused or contributed to the failure of the slope and rockery walls on the slope, a portion of which was upon SGCC’s property, and caused the SGCC to suffer those damages described herein.”
  2. Misrepresentation/Lease Agreement – The SGCC contends that had the “Association disclosed to the SGCC the issues with the adjoining area, the SGCC would not have entered into the Lease or would not have made the warranties concerning the property that it did”. Also “As a proximate result of the failure to disclose the defects in the adjoining area, The SGCC has been damaged in an amount potentially equal to the costs of repair of the entire slope, costs of repairs to its property, engineering fees, loss of business, and attorney’s fees and costs”
  3. Breach of Implied Covenant/Lease Agreement – More causes of actions based on the SOA’s wrongful conduct in not disclosing facts associated with the Common Area property adjacent to the SGCC leased property.
  4. Breach of Tolling Agreement – An allegation that the SOA has refused to acknowledge that the SGCC is to be given credit for the $500/month payments made to the SOA under the Tolling Agreement or to return these payments to the SGCC.
  5. Quantum Meruit – An allegation that the SOA has become indebted to, and refuses to pay, the SGCC for materials and labor expended as a result of damage to its property caused by work performed by the SOA on the adjacent Common Area property.

In its Counterclaim, the SGCC is seeking the following judgements (direct quotes).

  1. For damages equal to the value of the materials and labor expended to repair its Property as a result of the Association’s acts and/or omissions.
  2. For amounts paid to the Association pursuant to the parties’ Tolling Agreement.
  3. For loss of profits to the SGCC’s business as a result of the Association’s negligent maintenance of its property.
  4. For reformation of the Lease Agreement relieving SGCC of its warranty obligations based upon the misrepresentations of the Association.
  5. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the SGCC in prosecuting this Counterclaim, and
  6. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.

The SOA has until July 31st to respond to the SGCC’s Counterclaim. When filed, SU will post on this website.


In January of this year an Executive Committee was formed (Consisting of Board members Fitzgerald, Baker and Hanson) whose purpose was to meet with representatives of the SGCC and negotiate a settlement on which party was responsible for which portion of the Rockery Wall repair costs and how the SGCC would reimburse the SOA for its agreed upon portion.  The Committee was to publish meeting minutes and to regularly report to the Board at Board meetings. Therefore, the  question is; did any of these meetings ever take place and if so, what were the results? If held, one would have to assume that they were unsuccessful and hence the filing of the Complaint by the SOA on June 5th. Perhaps the COVID-19 restrictions came into play here, but this does not excuse the Board from notifying Association members  as to the filing of the Complaint, as the legal fees are likely to be significant. So much for transparency.  However, if a notification was made and SU missed it – Our sincere apologies.


SOA Legal Complaint Against the SGCC

On June 5th the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) filed a Complaint with the Washoe County District Court (Case No. CV20-00872) against the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC). The Complaint addresses two issues 1) Liability for Rockery Wall failure repairs and 2) Liability for Water Well Pump repairs. The filed Complaint consists of seventeen pages and may be accessed via the following link:

SOA Complaint Against SGCC, CV20-00872

In summary the Complaint (allegations) against the SGCC is based on the following:

  1. Failure to live up to the Warranty provisions of Section 9A of the Purchase Agreement (whereby the SOA purchased the Land and Water Rights owned by the SGCC), which included a four-year warranty provision, wherein the SGCC agreed, at their expense, to repair damage to or destruction of any part of the purchased property.
  2. Failure to live up to Section 8.1 of the Lease Agreement (whereby the SOA leased back the land and water rights to the SGCC) wherein the SGCC agreed, at their expense, to remedy all damage to or destruction of any part of the leased property.

The Complaint documents the history between the Parties’ leading up to the filing of the Complaint and categorizes seven “Causes of Action” against the SGCC as follows (as paraphrased by SU):

  1. Breach of Contract – The SGCC breached the contractual provisions of the Purchase Agreement, Lease Agreement and Water Facilities Agreement.
  2. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing – The SGCC deliberately failed to perform the terms, provisions and covenants required by the Purchase, Lease and Water Facilities Agreements, including failing to reimburse the SOA for expenses incurred to repair the Rockery Wall failure damage.
  3. Breach of Express Warranty – The SGCC breached the express warranty of the Purchase Agreement by failing to repair the Rockery Wall damage.
  4. Unjust Enrichment – The SGCC unjustly benefitted from the SOA repairing the Rockery Wall damage, at SOA expense, without subsequent reimbursement from the SGCC.
  5. Equitable Relief/Specific Performance – The SGCC improperly replaced a failed Water Well pump (i.e., with an undersized pump), which risks under-utilization and abandonment of essential water rights.
  6. Declaratory Relief – A request for a judicial determination on the part of the Court as to the Parties’ rights and duties under the Purchase and Lease Agreements, as well as their rights and duties pertaining to the Rockery Wall failure. Also, a request for an order awarding the SOA the entire amount of expenses it incurred to repair the Rockery Wall damaged area.
  7. Equitable Relief – Specific Performance for Termination and Turnover of Premises – Given that the SGCC has defaulted on the terms of the Lease Agreement, as an alternate remedy, the SOA seeks eviction and turnover of the Premises, at its election, at the time of trial.

In summary, the SOA is seeking judgments against the SGCC as follows:

  1. For general, special, and compensatory damages
  2. Award of attorney fees and costs
  3. Judgement if favor of the SOA
  4. Water Well pump replacement
  5. An order to turn over the premises to the SOA
  6. A declaration of the Parties’ rights and obligations
  7. An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest

Note that the Complaint did not include any dollar value associated with the SOA’s incurred expenses for repair of the damaged area caused by the Rockery Wall failures, of which there were two, an upper wall on SOA common area property and a lower wall on SGCC leased property. It is the SOA’s contention (based on an engineering report) that the lower wall failure is what caused the upper wall failure and subsequent hillside damage. In a Tolling Agreement between the SOA and SGCC, which put litigation on hold, the damage repair cost was estimated at $680K. It should also be noted that the SOA had previously proposed to split the repair costs with the SGCC on a 50-50 basis.

The SGCC has filed a response to the SOA Complaint along with a Counterclaim, which will be addressed in a subsequent Blog Post.

July 22nd BOD 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 July 22nd.

July 22nd BOD Meeting Agenda

Given that TCTC is still operating under COVID-19 restrictions, owners may only participate in the meeting via “Zoom” videoconferencing. For those of you who may not be on the SOA email distribution list, following are the instructions for joining the meeting:

Click on this link
Meeting ID: 956 2423 0037
Password: 072840
Dial in for audio (if your computer doesn’t have audio capability): 1-346-248-779
Need help with Zoom? How to Join a Zoom Meeting (YouTube)

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

2.  Appoint Member to Open Board Seat:

An action to appoint a replacement for Board Member Joe Strout who had to resign because he was temporarily no longer a Somersett unit owner. Although the Board meeting Packet did not identify an appointment candidate,  It is anticipated that Mr. Strout, who is now a Somersett owner again, will be appointed to fill out his original term.

5  Committee Reports:

 5.b.  Communication  –  John Tozzi and Joe Capotrio were appointed as Chair and Vice Chair respectively. The Committee recommended approval of Alan Wild and Jennifer Pelfini as new Committee members. The Committee has completed preparation of a community wide survey document, which was subsequently approved by the Board for owner distribution.

5.c.  Strategic and Facilities  –  Recommended approval of the following: 1) TCTC Alcohol Policy, and 2) Charter for the Men’s and Women’s Clubs. Policy and Charter were not included within the Board Meeting Packet, assume they will be made available to all owners following approval.

5.e  Governing Documents Committee  –  Completed review of the SOA CC&R’s, Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws and provided recommended changes to the Board.  Some of the proposed changes will require Legal review as well as review by the Somersett Subdivision Developer (i.e., Somersett Development Company). A summary of the proposed changes may be accessed via the following link:  Document Review Committee Summary of Recommendations

6.  Financials:

All the intricate details for the April and May 2020 Financials as well as the 2019 Draft Audit are contained within the July 22nd Board Meeting Packet, which are available on the SOA website referenced above.

7.  Unfinished Business:

7.a.  Legal Updates

      1. The March 13th Rockery Wall Lawsuit mediation session between the parties was unsuccessful, with the SOA rejecting the Defendants offer of settlement (the SOA Attorney Legal Update Letter did not disclose the Defendants offer). The appeal briefing deadline before the court was then scheduled for July 30th and subsequently rescheduled for August 15th at the request of the parties.
      2. On June 5th, 2020 the SOA filed a civil action against the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC) alleging breach of contract pursuant to the Purchase Agreement with regard to the Rockery Wall Failure and Water Well pump repairs. The SGCC answered with a counterclaim alleging Premises Liability/Negligence, Breach of Implied Covenant, Misrepresentation and Quantum Meruit (whatever all that means) on the part of the SOA The SOA has until July 31 to respond.

8.  New Business:

8.a.  Unanimous Written Consent #75  –  Contract approval to Black Eagle Consulting in the amount of $17,600 to produce a RFP for the Somersett Parkway Cut and Lost Creek Slope repairs.

8.b.  Unanimous Written Consent #76  –  Contract approval to Padovan Consulting in the amount of $11,200 for project management services related to item 8.a. above.

8.c.  Brightview Landscape Contract Renewal  –  A contract renewal in the amount of $1,440,868. Renewal period was not clearly identified within the Board Meeting Packet supporting documents.

8.d.  P-Card Approval  –  Approves FirstService employees Ryan Fields, Bernadette Rodas and Pauline Legaspi as SOA US Bank Purchase Card holders with a $1000 limit per purchase.

8.e.  Appointment of Communication Committee Members  –  See item 5.b. above

8.f.   Club Group Policy –  Establishes the policy/requirements for the formation of  SOA member groups using SOA facilities. Policy is accessible via the following link:  SOA Club Group Resolution

8.g.  Revised TCTC Rules and Regulations – The Board meeting packet did not contain a complete copy of the revised Rules and Regulations document, assume it will be made available to all owners following approval.

8.h.  Revised AGC Guidelines  –  The Board Meeting Packet did not contain a copy of the revised Guidelines, assume it will be made available to all owners following approval

8.i.  Discussion on Maintenance Agreement at the TCTC Roundabout – Not sure what this discussion is about, at the May BOD Meeting the Board approved sharing the maintenance costs on a 40% SOA and 60% Villages basis, even though the roundabout maintenance is a Villages responsibility.

8.j.  Discussion on Possible Refund of Assessments  –  Most likely related to TCTC assessments and the non-availability of use by owners during the COVID-19 restrictions

SOA Document Review Committee Summary of Recommendations

In Janurary 2020, the SOA Board of Directors approved the establishment of a “Governing Documents Review Committee” to review the SOA’s CC&R’s (i.e., the Declaration), Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws and provide recommended changes to the Board. Iinitially there were approximately twenty-four homeowners who showed an interest in serving on the Committee along with Board members Hanson and Retter. However, The subsequent shutdown of TCTC impacted meetings and the Committee boiled down to fourteen owners who continued to review the documents and discuss changes via video conferencing.

The Committee has completed its initial review of the CC&R’s, Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws and submitted its recommendations to the Board. The Committee submittal to the Board consisted of edited copies of the curent versions clearly indicating the recommended additions and/or deletions thereto. A letter summarizing the Committee’s recommendations was also submitted to the Board. For reader information, this letter may be accessed via the following link:

Document Review Committee Summary of Recommendations

What remains is: 1) Board apprvoals, 2) SOA Attorney review for compliance with Nevada Law, 3) negotiation with the “Declarant” (i.e., Blake Smith of the Somersett Devlopment Company) on changes that require his approval, and 4) submittal to Association members for ratiication, that is, a majority vote (i.e., > 50%) of all members in good standing.

Note that the Committee’s Charter did not include review of the “Somersett Aesthetic Guidelines”. However, it is SU’s understanding that this document is also under review by the Board.

May 27th BOD Meeting Recap

Following is a recap of topics discussed and/or approved at the May 27th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting, which due to the COVID-19 restrictions was the first one held since Febuary. However, as the Board had previously advised,  it would not be open to physical attendance by Owners, but rather by video link. How did this work out? pretty good in SU’s opinion. In fact the number of Owners who logged in, exceeded normal attendance at past physical meetings.

Owners were allowed to submit comments, on agenda items or otherwise, via email up to 3:00 PM prior to the meeting. Those that did so had them read by the Board. Submitted comments included the following:

  1. That BrightView was not paying enough attention to side roads off the Parkways as regards landscape maintenance – Board response being that the regional head of BrightView had visited Somersett and was not completely happy with what he saw throughout the Community, and all issues would be diligently addressed, including replacing some turf at their own cost. Apparently, lawn fungus is a problem within Somersett.
  2. Status on the cost recovery from the Country Club for their share of Rockery Wall repairs – Board response basically being that there was nothing to report.
    Note: In December 2019 the Board authorized the formation of an “Executive Committee” to work with the Country Club on resolving this issue. For background information readers are referred to SU’s previous post of December 14th entitled “Rockery Wall Lawsuit Appeal and SGCC Tolling Agreement
  3. An opposition, by Committee members, against the proposed revision to the Document Review Committee Charter – Board advised that there was an apparent miscommunication here and that the Charter revision would not be considered (i.e., removed as an agenda item).
    Note: in a related discussion, the Board wanted to review the Committee’s draft mark-up of the CC&R’s before submitting to the SOA Attorney for legal review of the “Declarant” (i.e., Somersett Development Company) related provisions that the Committee is recommending to delete from the CC&R’s

New Business Items on the Agenda were disposed of as follows:

Note: For background information on the following agenda items,  see SU’s previous post   “May 27th SOA BOD Meeting

  • 7.a.  Shared Maintenance Agreement – Approved sharing the maintenance costs tor the Town Center round about on a 60% (SOA) and 40% (Villages) basis.
  • 7.b.  Dakota Ridge Drainage Repairs – Approved the EPS Proposal for $7150.
  • 7.c.  1880 Dove Mountain Erosion Repair – This project covers repairs on both private and Association property. The Board approved the EPS proposal of which the Association portion amounts to $10,924.
  • 7.d.  Irrigation Controller Replacement – Approved the BrightView proposal for $17, 972
  • 7.e.  Community Entrance Landscape Enhancement – Approved the BrightView Proposal for $17,972. However, the SOA has a $20,000 credit from BrightView that will be used on this project.
  • 7.f.  Lawn Edging Replacement – Approved the BrightView proposal for $13,166.
  • 7.g.  Tree Replacement – Approved the BrightView proposal for $24,785
  • 7.h.  2020 Noxious Weed Removal from Vacant Lots (26 private lots) – Approved the BrightView proposal for $8350. However, this expenditure will not cost the SOA anything as, per prior arrangements, it is all reimbursable from the Lot Owners. Good corporation between Lot Owners and the SOA, which most likely saved them money.
  • 7.i.  Fire Hydrant & Curb Painting – Approved Color Trend proposal of $4450 for 106 fire hydrants & curbs along private streets.
  • 7.j,k.l. & m.  Unanimous Written Consent Documents # 70,72,73,74  –  A formal acknowledgement of prior approvals. Of particular interest is #74 which established the “Somersett Guidelines for Re-Opening TCTC“. Board advised that FSR is working with Washoe County on process for re-opening TCTC pool as soon as possible and that staff hires will be needed (e.g., life guards)
  • 7.n.  Revised Document Review Committee Charter – Not acted on, removed from agenda.
  • 7.o.  The Boulders Gate Closure Complaint – A community complaint that the security gates are being left open much too often, thereby compromising security. Board advised they will work with contractors (reason for gates being open most of the time) in an attempt to help alleviate the situation. Perhaps with the issuance of temporary gate codes.
  • 7.p.  Software for TCTC – Conditionally approved proposal for use of the Alosant “Amenity Pass” system at TCTC. Price is $7200/year with a $2500 initial setup fee. Conditionality was predicated on a better understanding of what, if any, support fees would be involved.
  • 7.q.  Discussion on June Mail-out – Apparently there has been some revised “Rules and Regulations” adopted by the Board and whether or not the SOA should go ahead with a previously targeted June Mail-out to owners, or wait to include some new developments. Decision was made to go ahead with the mail-out as planned.
  • 7.r.  Collection Company Change – A discussion on whether or not the SOA should change collection companies given concerns over the performance of the current company. A recommendation has been made that the SOA switch back to Red Rock Financial Services as our collection agent. Previous concerns the SOA had with Red Rock have apparently been alleviated.


May 27th SOA BOD 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 May 27th. Given that TCTC is still closed, Owners may participate in the meeting via “Zoom” videoconferencing only. Details on accessing the Board Meeting have yet to be disclosed.

May 27th BOD Meeting Agenda

The Board Packet providing background information on Agenda items is available on the SOA Website ( under the SOA Committees and Meetings link, which provided the source for the following (Agenda items noted):

Committee Reports:

4.d. West Park Community Garden – Delayed progress due to COVID-19 restrictions. Committee will be working on the following ativities: Development of garden rules, fees for participation, irrigation systems, fencing considerations (rodent and other small animal control) and Board approval for fund raising actiities. The report included a document providing supplemental information on the Garden for those wishing to participate, which may be accessed via the following link:     Somersett West Park Community Garden

4.e. Governing Documents – Committee has been meeting via videoconferencing and competed their reiew of the CC&R’s. A marked up copy highlighting proposed additions and deletions has been submitted for Board and Attorney review. Negotiations with Somersett Development Company (Blake Smith) on proposed elimination the Declarant rights provisions contained within the current CC&R’s will be required.

4.f. General Manager – The Board Packet contained the usual GM report, which summarized what has transpired during the COVID-19 closures, including TCTC, Canyon 9 and Landscape (Brightview) projects. For those interested in all the details, the Board Packet (as mentioned above) is available on the SOA website.


5.a and 5.b — All the intricate details for the past three months are contained within the Board Meeting Packet.

Old Business:

6.a. Legal Updates – Nothing new to report on the Rockery Wall lawsuit (a mediation session was originally scheduled for March 13th) or negotiations with the Somersett Country Club on Rockery Wall repair costs. Most likely a result of the COVID-19 restrictions.

New Business:

7.a. Shared Maintenance Agreement – A proposed agreement between the SOA and the Village at Town Center for sharing the maintenance costs for the roundabout between the Village and TCTC. Shared amount was not specified in the document, a copy of which is available via the following link:   Shared Maintenance Agreement

7.b. Dakota Ridge Drainage Repairs – A proposal from Environmental Protection Services in the amount of $7510 to perform the repairs. Note that the proposal is dated November 21, 2019, is it still active for award?

7.c. 1880 Dove Mountain Erosion Repair Proposals – Hillside repair proposals from Signature Landscapes ($27,375) and EPS ($20,448). Note that the EPS proposal was dated November 11, 2019 whereas the Signature Landscapes proposal was dated may 5, 2020.

7.d. Irrigation Controller Replacement Proposal – Proposal from BrightView ($5715) for replacement

7.e. Community Entrance Landscape Enhancement Proposal – Proposal from BrightView ($17,972) for turf removal and plant additions at the Sierra Canyon west entry monument.

7.f. Lawn Edging Replacement Proposal – Proposal from BrightView ($13,166) for removal and replacements of broken lawn edging along the Parkways.

7.g. Tree Replacement Proposal – Proposal from BrightView ($24,785) for tree replacements along the Parkway between roundabouts 3 and 6.

7.h. 2020 Noxious Weed Removal for Vacant Lot Proposal – Proposal from BrightView ($8350) for weed removal from twenty-six private lots within Somersett.

7.i. Fire Hydrant & Curb Painting Proposal – Proposal from Color Trends ($4450) for red painting of curbs and 106 fire hydrants within Somersett.

7.j,k,l, & m. Unanimous Written Consent Documents # 70, 72, 73 & 74 – The unanimous written consent process is normally used when the Board is unable to meet as a group and action is required before the next Board meeting. Most likely this process was followed due to the COVID-19 restrictions.

#70 – Approval of a West Coast Paving Proposal ($2,692) for private roads and the Town Center parking lot.

#72 – Approval for the SOA not to assess Owners for late fees and interest (due to COVID-19 impact) for the months of March, April and May

#73 – Approved a BrightView proposal ($11,594) for irrigation controller replacements

#74 – Approved the guidelines for the re-opening of TCTC subject to when Governor Sisolak approves Phase 2 of the COVID-19 statewide standards. A copy of these guidelines may be accessed via the following link:   Somersett Guidelines for Re-Opening TCTC

7.n. Revised Document Review Committee Charter & Appointment of Voting Members – A copy of the revised Charter is available via the following link:     Revised Governing Documents Review Charter

7.o. Review Formal Complaint regarding Gate Closure from Boulders Homeowners – A copy of this complaint is available via the following link:     Formal Notice of Complaint

7.p. Software for the TCTC Proposal – This is a proposal for replacing the current IBS membership management and account system with an Alosant “Amenity Pass” system. The price difference being $5000/year for IBS and $7200/year for Alosant. However, the Alosant system is considered far superior to IBS in the benefits it provides.

7.q. Discussion on June Mail Out to Owners – No information contained in Board Packet

7.r. Collection Companies Potential Change – No information contained in Board Packet

SU Comment:

Regarding landscaping, it appears that the extra Work Orders from BrightView keep on coming, $81,582 worth itemized above. Do we really need new trees along the parkway, enhancing the SCA entrance monument grounds, or removing weeds (are they a fire hazard) from private lots (is this not the lot owner responsibility)? All during austere times and low common area reserve funds?. What about the condition of common area grass strips along the Parkway and Private Streets (e.g, Whisper Rock Way) that leave much to be desired. Is Brightview doing its best?

Also, It seems unfair that Owners are still being cited for “brown spots” when our own common areas are in similar disarray, perhaps even the cause (fungus) for Owner blights?

Previous Post Correction

SU would like to correct its statement in our previous post of May 18 entitled “Town Square Commercial Property Update” that the SOA was a recipient of $311K as a result of the sale of the Town Square property housing the Sakana Sushi restaurant, which was being sold at auction as a result of a SOA lien on the property due to unpaid assessments. Under the term of the “Certificate of Sale” (accessible via download within the previous post) Saemaul Investments (current property owner) had a 60 day option to repay the purchaser (Champery Rental REO, LLC) the $311K purchase price plus interest and the SOA unpaid assessments to retain title to the property, which they apparently have exercised (although as yet unconfirmed within Washoe County records). Therefore, the funds receivable by the SOA will be for the outstanding assessments, an estimated $67K plus unknown fees, and not the $311K as previously reported.

SU apologizes for our misinterpretation on the content of the “Certificate of Sale” (which was also published on this website for all to read} and will subsequently publish the final documents associated with this auction sale when recorded in the Washoe County records.

Town Square Commercial Property Update

It appears that the Somersett Owners Association is now $311K richer (minus unknown fees). This as a result of the sale of their interest in the lien against the owner (Saemaul Investments, LLC.) of the Town Square building housing the Sakana Sushi restaurant (also owned by Saemaul Investments). A timeline of events culminating in the sale follows:


  • in June of 2019, the SOA filed a “NOTICE OF DELINQUENT ASSESSMENT AND CLAIM OF LIEN” (Washoe County Document # 4922405-1) against Saemaul Investments due to their being approximately $20K in arears of their SOA assessment payments.
  • In November 2019, a “NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL” (Washoe County Document # 4977863-1) was filed against Saemaul Investments due to their continued default of SOA assessment payments, which now totaled approximately $55K.
  • In March 2010 a “NOTICE OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SALE” (Washoe County Document # 5009415-1) was filed advising Saemaul Investments their property would be sold at public auction if their obligation was not paid. The assessment lien at that time being approximately $67K plus late charges, interest, fees and expenses.
  • In April 2020, being no satisfaction of the lien obligation, a “CERTIFICATE OF SALE” (Washoe County Document # 5019115-1) was accomplished with Champery Rental REO, LLC as the purchaser of the property. Purchase price was $311K.

The CERTIFICATE OF SALE allows the Owner to redeem the property within 60 days by repaying the $311K plus interest and other potential liabilities. However, there is no impact on the SOA in this regard. This is strictly between Champery Rental REO and Saemaul Investments.

So what happens with the property now? How do REO (Real Estate Owned) entities operate? Perhaps there is a knowledgeable foreclosure realtor amongst our readers who would care to comment.

Also, has the SOA determined what they are going to do with the $311K? Perhaps a Board member (I know some of them read this blog) would care to comment.

If any or our readers are interested in the legal details, the documents referenced above may be accessed by clicking on them. Also, a review of the clouded history behind the Town Square commercial buildings is available via our previous post of December 10, 2019 entitled “Town Square Commercial Properties”.