May 22nd SOA BOD Meeting Recap

Following is a recap of issues discussed and/or approved at the May 22th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting (i.e., as interpreted by SU). Related Agenda items are noted. The full meeting Agenda may be accessed via the following link:

May 22nd BOD Meeting Agenda

4. Committee Reports

4.a  Finance Committee  –  1) The SOA’s final 2018 Audit is expected to be completed for presentation to the Board by the June BOD Meeting. This will include a reclassification of all Rockery Wall expenses to be reported as a singular item within the Audit. 2) Recommended approval of the revised expense policy (see item 7.e below). 3) Recommended that SOA management review areas within the current budget that can be deferred or eliminated due to legal expenses incurred by the James/McCullough case (see Item 6.a below).

4.d  Communication Committee – 1) Recommended development of a procedure for Charitable Organizations wishing to use SOA communication media for solicitations. That is, must be Somersett based consisting primarily of Somersett residents. Such organizations to be approved in advance by the Board as a “Somersett Group”. Communication Committee to work with SOA Management staff on generation of a procedure and recommendations for BOD approval. 2) Recommended approval of the D4 SOA website proposal (see item 7.f below).

4.e  General Manager Report – The General Manager Report is a rather lengthy document summarizing the previous month Association activities as compiled by the SOA Management staff. It generally includes: 1) Aesthetic Guidelines Committee and Community Standards Committee applications and hearings data, 2) The Club at Town Center (TCTC) events, activities and usage data, 3) SOA Communication media data, 4) Updates on Common Area maintenance, TCTC maintenance and Special Projects, 5) Vendor activity reports (e.g., BrightView Landscaping, Reno Green Landscaping and Padovan Consulting) and 6) Specific General Manager (GM) activities. Of particular interest are the GM activity and Padovan Consulting reports, which may be accessed via the following links:

May GM Activity Report         Padovan Consulting LLC., SOA Engineering Update, May 2019.

For those interested in all the details, the total monthly report is always contained within the SOA Board Meeting Packet, which is generally issued a few days prior to the Board Meeting and accessible on the SOA website under the Committees and Meetings page. Also via the Somersett Happenings email distribution. If you do not have login access to the SOA website or receive the Somersett Happenings emails you are encouraged to do so.

6. Old Business

6.a  Legal Updates – The monthly SOA Attorney “Legal Disclosure” letter to the BOD contained the following updates: 1) The SOA Attorney has filed a non-opposition to the James and McCullough motions for recovery of legal fees. SOA liability amount was not disclosed. (SU Note: Given the SOA legal fees of $284K through March 1st, it is not unreasonable to predict the James/McCullough legal fees could be in the $100K range) 2) Somersett Development Company et. al. Rockery Wall Lawsuit – The scheduled trial date of February 3, 2020 has been vacated along with all pretrial dates and discovery deadlines. Reset of these dates are to be determined as agreed to by the parties. No reason given for the delay with no discussion by the BOD on either item.

6.b  Rockery Wall Update – Seth Padovan provided a verbal update on the Rockery Wall project in which he advised the Gypsy Hill Rockery Wall repair was nearing completion (i.e., within two weeks) with some cosmetic work and landscaping yet to be accomplished. Monitoring and evaluation of other rockery walls continue. No subsequent repair work has been specifically identified or scheduled. However, some repair work may be required on a wall in the Wisper Rock area.

6.c  Discussion on Ventana Ridge Access Easement – Ventana Point LLC. has an approved residential development (Ventana Ridge) of approximately 57 homesites, which borders Somersett property at the upper end of Painted River Trail. In this regard, the Developer is seeking a permanent “Access and Utility Easement” through a small portion of Somersett property. As such they have submitted a proposal to the SOA to accomplish same. The Ventana Point LLC. proposal may be accessed via the following link, which also depicts location of the proposed easement.

Ventana Ridge Easement Proposal

This proposal was discussed and voted upon (although the Meeting Agenda only identified a discussion topic, not a proposal to be approved, therefore some might question the validity of this action) with the following results:

1) The Developer proposed price of $53,352 ($28,352 for land value and $25,000 for administrative costs) for the easement was not accepted. A motion to accept the proposed easement at a 150% increase over the proposed price was subsequently approved on a 4:1 vote. The lone dissenter was Board Member Jason Roland, who felt the land value quoted by the developer was not properly evaluated and that both the proposed and counter offer prices were significantly below actual market value. Additionally, that Developer alternatives to the Somersett easement proposal would be many times more costly, if not prohibitive.

2) Following the price approval, a second motion to hold off on sending a response to Ventana Point LLC was also approved. Basis was unclear to SU, but being a request for a permanent easement, perhaps some other legal action or approvals may be required.

7. New Business

The following items were all approved by the Board:

7.a  A Padovan Consulting LLC. proposal ($1,900 fixed price + T&M at $130/hr not to exceed $6500) for survey , RFP preparation and construction management services related to repair of Split Rock Trail low spot issues.

7.b  A BrightView Landscaping proposal ($16,351) for Gypsy Hill Trail Rockery Wall landscaping.

7.c   A Wadsworth Engineering change order request ($13,614) for additional Gypsy Hill Rockery Wall anchors to supplement those that did not pass inspections.

7.d  Nothing to approve on the Gypsy Hill Trail fire hydrant relocation (Note: A proposal by Gradex for $6,916 was previously approved at the April BOD Meeting). Just a comment that there may be some additional issues to consider.

7.e  A revised SOA Expense Policy. The revised policy may be viewed via the following link:

SOA Expense Policy

7.f  A D4 Advanced Media proposal ($1,980) for continued maintenance of the SOA Website.

9. Homeowner Comments

Included the following:

1)  An agreement with Board Member Roland that the proposed and approved price for the Ventana Ridge easement was significantly undervalued.

2)  A concern that the hillside along the Parkway entrance to Somersett was not being properly maintained. That falling rocks captured by the retaining ditch were simply being placed on the ditch berm rather than being removed as was apparently required under the original maintenance contract.

May 22nd SOA Board Meeting

The Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) open meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 22nd, 2019 at 5:30 PM at The Club at Town Center (TCTC) Sports Court. The Meeting Agenda may be accessed by clicking on the following link:

May 22nd BOD Meeting Agenda (Note wrong date, should read May 22 not April 24)

Details associated with noted agenda items follow:

4.0 Committees:

  • 4.a  Budget & Finance Committee: 1) Finance has asked management for recommendations on areas within the operating budget that can be cut or deferred due to legal expenses associated with the James case causing budget concerns.  2) Maryann McKinley has resigned from the Committee. Vacant position will be advertised on the SOA website. Anyone wishing to serve is encouraged to submit an application.  3) Positions are also available on the Community Standards and Communication Committees
  • 4.d  Communication Committee:  1) Recommended guidelines for Charitable Organizations wishing to use SOA communication media (e,g, newsletters and SOA website). Guidelines include: a) Charities should be Somersett based, b) Charities should consist of primarily Somersett residents, c) Charities should be approved in advance by the Board as a ‘Somersett Group’, and d) A procedure developed for such groups to use to gain approvals.  2) Recommended acceptance of the D4 Advanced Media proposal (see New Business item 7.f below).
  • 4.e  General Manager: A rolling summary update for SOA engineering projects may be viewed via the following link. Note that a cost spreadsheet (past & present) of SOA engineering projects has been included:  Padovan Consulting LLC., SOA Engineering Update, May 2019

6.0 Old Business:

  • 6.a  Legal Updates:  1) Having lost the James and McCullogh lawsuit (See previous post of March 13th entitled “ The Northgate Neighbors Verdict Is In!”, the SOA Attorney has now filed a non-opposition to the James and McCullough motions for recovery of legal fees. SOA liability amount has not yet been disclosed.  2) Somersett Development Company et. al. Lawsuit – The scheduled trial date of February 3, 2020 has been vacated along with all pretrial dates and discovery deadlines. Reset of these dates are to be determined as agreed to by the parties.
  • 6.b  Rockery Wall Update – Seth Padovan, SOA’s engineering consultant, will provide a verbal update. One may also refer to the “Rockery Wall Failures” section of the “Padovan Consulting, SOA Engineering Update, May 2019” link referenced above.

7.0 New Business:

  • 7.a  Split Rock Trail Repair: A proposal from Padovan Consulting to conduct a Topographic Survey ($1,900) and provide Design & Construction Management Services (T&M not to exceed $6,500) for low spot repair work along Split Rock Trail in the Boulders. An RFP will be prepared to obtain bids from vendors to perform the work.
  • 7.b  Re-Landscaping Along Gypsy Hill Trail: A proposal ($16,351) from BrightView for landscaping the repaired Gypsy Hill Trail Rockery Walls.
  • 7.c  Gypsy Hill Trail Rockery Wall Repair Change Order: A Change Order Request ($13,614) from Wadsworth Engineering for additional wall anchors.
  • 7.d  Gypsy Hill Trail Fire Hydrant Move: Unsure on the action item for this agenda item. A proposal from Gradex Construction for $6,916 to perform the work was approved at the April BOD Meeting.
  • 7.e  Revised Expense Policy: A proposed revision to the SOA’s Expense Policy, which establishes limits and required actions for Board approved expenditures as well as vendor bid requirements. A copy of the proposed Expense Policy may be viewed via the following link:  SOA Expense Policy.
  • 7.d  Website Maintenance Contract Renewal: A proposal from D4 Advanced Media ($1,980) for continued maintenance of the SOA website.

Need We Fear the Dark Sky Police?

Fair weather is fast approaching wherein many residents will want to experience pleasant evenings on their Patio – barbequing, entertaining or just enjoying the outdoors. Many with the added use of string lighting (fiesta lights, bistro lights or whatever) for added ambiance and visibility. However, this is not without controversy as witnessed by the dialog that has transgressed on both the “Somersett Nextdoor” and the SOA’s “” websites.

Apparently, the SOA’s Community Standards Committee has issued citations to some Somersett owners citing that their use violates the SOA’s “Dark Sky” policy as required by both the SOA PUD and CC&R’s. But is this really the case? Unless we have missed something, neither of these documents address specific requirements for this type of lighting. In fact, the CC&R’s contain no specific reference to any lighting requirements at all, dark skies or otherwise. As for the PUD, lighting requirements for residential structures are limited to the following provisions:

General Light Standards (page 2-89):

    • Lighting levels should be limited to effect “dark skies”.
    • Unless otherwise specified, lighting will comply with City Code.
    • Fixture scale and illumination levels will be consistent with the specific use.
    • Lighting will not extend beyond its tasks. Fixtures will employ cut-off reflectors or housing shields to eliminate spillover into adjoining areas where the light would be a nuisance.
    • Use of energy efficient lighting design.

Landscape Lighting (page 2-89)

    • Landscape lighting will be used where appropriate to create mood and to accent focal points.
    • When used, landscape lighting will be soft and unobtrusive. Light will be directed and/or shielded to prevent glare.
    • Existing and manmade boulder grouping, outcropping, etc. may be accented by low voltage lighting across the surfaces, in a manner not posing a nuisance to adjacent properties. The light source will be concealed mechanically or with plant materials or smaller rock groupings.

Residential lighting Standards (Page 2-93)

    • Exterior fixtures mounted on buildings will be no higher than the line of the first story eave or, where no eave exists, no higher than 12 feet above finished grade.
    • Building lights will be shielded to prevent light spillage onto adjacent property or streets.

Given the PUD provisions quoted above, it would appear that the use of string lighting would fall under the “General Light Standards” provision. In addition, being that the CC&R’s are silent here, it would subsequently fall upon the SOA’s Aesthetic Guidelines document to define any additional requirements and/or limitations regarding the use of string lighting, which they do not. Thereby leaving it up to the sole discretion of the Aesthetic Guidelines Committee to assess compliance and grant approvals, which, given the lack of specific requirements, should not be unreasonably withheld.

To help assess the use of string lighting in a “Dark Skies” Community, a Somersett Committee Member inquiry to the International Dark-Sky Association ( resulted in the following response:

“Thank you for your question – it is a common one.

Our general opinion is that this type of lighting is usually not an issue for us, depending on how it is used. String lighting is generally:

• low intensity (under 25W for LED bulbs)
• on the warmer color spectrum (less than 3000 Kelvins)
• primarily used seasonally (outdoor months)
• used for short periods of time (turned off by 11pm or so).

From the link you included, that particular product meets all those requirements. Within these parameters, the fact that the bulbs are unshielded is pretty much a non-issue. Additionally in the case you mention, it seems that this lighting would primarily be for personal use (i.e. backyard, around a home, etc.) which is fairly low-impact. If this lighting was used in a commercial space (restaurant patio) however, we’d like for there to be a curfew for when the lights are turned off. Our rule of thumb around outdoor lighting is to only use light when and where you need it.

Is the community you’re working in an official International Dark Sky Community, designated by IDA? If so, I’d be interested to know what community for our records. We do have a specific set of guidelines for communities to follow to become certified (and maintain certification), which I’ll attach here for you. If not an official IDSC, these guidelines may still be helpful for understanding what IDA considers to be dark-sky compliant.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Best, Diana del Solar “

Note: The parameters for the string light product referenced in the inquiry were typical and may be accessed via the following link:′-LED-Filament-String-Light-Set.product.100405061.html

Bottom line here is that Somersett owners should not be cited or disapproved for the use of string lighting on a dark skies impact basis. Rather they should be assessed on a case by case basis for other considerations.

It should also be noted that Somersett’s “Dark Skies” are probably impacted more by residents who are increasingly leaving their porch and garage lights on from dusk to dawn for what they believe to be safety reasons, also by surrounding communities who do not adhere to a dark sky policy. Unfortunately, Somersett is an isolated dark sky community surrounded by non-dark sky communities, so the benefit of being such is diminishing.

Perhaps an “After-Use” for the Sierra Canyon Goats?

The following submitted by SOA Member Geoffey Brooks:

Goats and Somersett

We drove down to Sierra Canyon the other day to inspect the fire control goats. Some were indeed munching, some were frolicking and others inspecting the “tourists”. I must confess when you look at the jumble of weeds, brush below the Aspen Lodge, I am not sure not even starving goats are going to be able to keep up with the rapid spring growth.

Whilst we were there, the goats kept their distance. I was trying to assess how many goats were female which could be milked for their delicious “sage & cheatgrass” milk. Sage is a great flavor to add to most culinary delights, such as goat cheese, very tasty.

Unfortunately, I was corrected and told that sage brush and the flavor sage are … different. I guess I would have to settle for a Sage Grouse or two instead. No, I was told the Grouse are protected species and essential for the health of the barren desert surroundings.

My June UC, Berkeley Wellness Letter arrived the other day and in their “Ask the Experts” Column they had some comments on goat meat, how healthy it was, and the best way to prepare it (we always eat grass fed beef!).


“This read meat, commonly consumed in China, India and most of the world, is, nutritionally speaking a good alternative to beef because it is leaner”.

“The demand for goat meat in the US has increased in the last two decades due to a growing gourmet market for sustainable “locavore” meat”

“Goat has half as much fat as the leanest beef and is even slightly less caloric than skinless chicken breast (and grouse?)”

“ in fact, it has only 165 calories and 3 grams of fat per 4 oz, (cooked ). Chicken breast is 190 calories and 4 grams of fat.”

“Tender cuts can be roasted, broiled or sautéd”

“Most of the goat meat is imported from Australia. But it is a fast growing industry here in the US.The animals are used for their meat, milk and hair, as well as for brush control (by foraging vines, twigs, shrubs, weeds and other vegetation, they help manage land “like little lawnmowers”, as one goat owning restauranteur put it”.

“Goats are typically raised on fenced pasture on small farms” –
(I would hardly call the hills of Aspen Lodge pasture)

“Some goats are raised for fun as a hobby – Goat Yoga”

“ For goat recipes go to”


Many goat cheeses are delicious… We are now drinking goat Kefir. Maybe we will produce Irish Goat Stew (with lots of carrots) for a future Pot Luck.

Maybe an opportunity for a new restaurant the Town Center – “Yoga,Yogurt and ….”


The following post submitted by Nancy Chontos, SOA Member and Sierra Canyon Owner :

At the April SOA Board meeting, a new fee structure was approved for Somersett owners who want to make changes and/or improvement to their landscaping and/other minor changes. These changes take effect on July 1, 2019.

The three most significant changes that affect non-custom homes are:

  1. The fee for new landscape plans or updates to current landscaping, adding a trellis or patio cover has been lowered from $250 to $125. The fee for minor changes such as painting and minor landscaping changes has been lowered from $400 to $100.
  2. The deposit fee for both of the above categories ( of either $100 or $125) is fully refundable after you have passed inspection by the SOA.
  3. They have a category called “Desk Review” that includes minor tree and shrub species changes, basic design courtyard gates, minor trip color change, hot tubs, mow strip, solar and pre-approved storm doors. The fully-refundable deposit for this category is only $50 AND, you can get approval right away and not have to wait for the AGC to meet and approve.

Homeowners must still go through their sub association first for approval, and then apply for approval from Sommersett.

Lower costs, fully-refundable deposits and a potential for quick approval. All positive changes starting July 1.

A big thanks to the SOA Board, FSR Management and the AGC!!

April 24th SOA Board Meeting Results

Following is a summary of results from the April 24th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting.

Meeting was not very well attended and moved along quickly with no homeowner comments on the agenda topics. No input from the Sierra Canyon Board who, in previous meetings, routinely had some “axe to grind” with the SOA. Discussions on both the Old and New Business items was limited with those requiring action subsequently approved as indicated below:  For a summary description of each, please refer to previous post of April 22nd entitled “April 24th SOA BOD Meeting Update”.

Old Business:

  • 6.a  Legal Update – Apparently the SOA Attorney has agreed to pay the Plaintiff’s legal fees associated with the “Northgate Neighbors” lawsuit. The Court had previously ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, James and McCullogh, over the SOA. Amount was not disclosed. For details regarding this lawsuit, see previous post of March 13th entitled “The Northgate Neighbors Verdict Is In!
  • 6.b  Rockery Wall Update – Update, along with other SOA Engineering Projects, may be accessed via the following link: Padovan Consulting LLC., SOA Engineering Update, April 2019
    6.c.  Proposed AGC Fee Reductions – Approved. New fee schedule may be accessed via the following link:  AGC Fee Schedule – Proposed Changes
    6.d  RFP’s for Gym Equipment Renovations – Awarded to Commercial Fitness in the amount of $121,076.

New Business:

  • 7.a  Proposed SOA Board Mission Statement – Approved, click on the following: SOA Mission Statement
  • 7.b  Clubhouse Sound System Replacement – Audio equipment for indoor and outdoor speaker systems. Old proposals but reportedly still valid, referred to the Facilities Committee for review
  • 7.c  Contract Proposal for 2225 Pepperwood Lot – Approved contract with Dave Hughes as the Real Estate Broker at a 10% commission.
  • 7.d  Winter Creek Pocket Park/Trail Head Revegetation – Approved Environmental Protection Services proposal for $3.680
  • 7.e  Winter Creek Pocket Park/Trail Head Irrigation and Landscape Plantings – Approved Brightview Landscape proposal for $15,136
  • 7.f  Wall Survey Monitoring Point Installations and Measurements – Approved CFA proposal for $27,700 (one year)
  • 7.g  Wall Monitoring with Inclinometers and Inspection program – Approved American Geotechnical Inc. Proposal for $58,000 (one year)
  • 7.h  Relocate Fire Hydrant Along Gypsy Hill Trail – Approved Gradex Construction Company proposal for $6,916
  • 7.i  Man Hole Cover Lowering on Boulder Ridge Court – Approved Sierra Nevada Construction proposal for $4,800 (repavement services only, Reno City to bear cost of manhole repositioning).

April 24th SOA BOD Meeting Update

The previously published Agenda for the April 24th SOA BOD Meeting has been updated to include several new items. The BOD Meeting Packet supporting the meeting is also now available on the SOA website at under the SOA/Committees & Meetings tab. The revised meeting agenda may be accessed via the following link:

April 24th BOD Meeting Agenda – Revised

Comments on some of the agenda items, as derived from the BOD Meeting Packet, follow:

SOA Committee Recommendations:

  • 4.a. Finance – Committee recommendations include: 1) No objections to the proposed adjusted fee structure for AGC Submittals (see agenda item 6.c. below). 2) Supported the proposed expenditures for new gym equipment and the virtual fitness program (see agenda item 6.d. below). 3) Recommended engagement of David Hughes at a 10% commission rate (although not directly stated, it is assumed this is related to item 7.c. below).
  • 4.b. Strategic Planning/Facilities – Also recommended the proposed expenditures for new gym equipment and virtual fitness program
  • 4.c. Community Standards – Recommended appointment of Marilee Watts to the committee.

Old Business:

  • 6.b. Rockery Wall Update – An update on the Rockery Wall repair project along with other SOA Engineering projects may be accessed via the following link:

Padovan Consulting LLC., SOA Engineering Update, April 2019

  • 6.c. Proposed AGC Fee Reduction – Owners, and prospective owners, will be happy if the proposed changes to AGC fees are approved. Except for Custom/Architectural submittals, all other AGC category fees have been reduced, with fully refundable deposits on the lower two categories of “External Changes” and “Desk Review”. The proposed new fee amounts along with a comparison to the existing fees may be viewed via the following link:

AGC Fee Schedule – Proposed Changes

  • 6.d. RFP’s for Gym Equipment Renovations – Three proposals from Commercial Fitness ($121,076), Equip Fitness ($128,949) and Sparks Fitness ($133,290) for TCTC Fitness Center equipment will be considered.

New Business:

  • 7.b. Clubhouse Sound System Replacement Proposal – From the BOD Meeting Packet, it appears that two proposals (Sierra Sound at $22,875 and DataCom Nevada at $23,245) for replacement of TCTC indoor and outdoor sound systems will be discussed. However, the proposals contained in the meeting packet are both well over a year old, and hence expired. Also, in the case of Sierra Sound, no details on what is being provided.
  • 7.c. Contract Proposal for 2225 Pepperwood SOA Lot – Discussion on entering into a contract with a real estate agent (see item 4.a. above) for sale of the identified custom lot that the SOA acquired in foreclosure back in 2015. Agent was unidentified in the BOD Meeting Packet, but based on item 4.a above, believed to be SOA owner David Hughes. Proposal calls for a 10% commission. Is this normal? Home sales usually operate at a 6% fee. Perhaps some real estate agent out there would care to comment.
  • 7.d. & e. Wintercreek Pocket Park/Trail Head Proposals – Involves two coordinated proposals (Environmental Protection Services and BrightView Landscape) for revegetation of poorly landscaped common area, additional plantings, fence repairs and irrigation system work in the Scott Valley Road area. Total for both proposals is $18,816.
  • 7.f. & g. Rockery Wall Monitoring Proposals – Two proposals for enhanced rockery wall inspection and monitoring services. One from CFA for $10,500 set-up & $15,200 annual costs, and one from American Geotechnical for $24,000 set-up and $34,000 annual cost. Total cost of both proposals covering installation, and one year of inspection, review, data collection, etc is $83.700.
  • 7.h. & i. Fire Hydrant Relocation and Manhole Cover Lowering – Two relatively low cost proposals. One from Gradex Construction for $6,916 to relocate a fire hydrant on Gypsy Hill Trail due to Rockery Wall repairs, and one from Sierra Nevada Construction for $7,500 to reposition manhole covers on Boulder Ridge Court.

April 24th SOA Board Meeting

The Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) open meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 24th, 2019 at 5:30 PM at The Club at Town Center (TCTC) Sports Court. The Meeting Agenda may be accessed by clicking on the following link:

April 24th BOD Meeting Agenda

The preceding is listed as a “Draft”, and based on past practice, an updated agenda will most likely be in the offing between now and the Board Meeting. Also, the BOD Meeting Packet, which contains details associated with Agenda items was not available at the time of posting. Therefore, this posting will be updated when and if a new Agenda is released and/or the BOD Meeting packet iis made available. In the interim, the following comments on indicated Agenda items:

Old Business:

  • 6.a,b  Legal & Rockery Wall Updates – Pretty much a standard monthly agenda item. Not sure if there will be anything significant to report, perhaps more information will be available once the Board Meeting Packet is published.
  • 6.c  Proposed AGC Fee Reduction – Apparently the BOD and Finance Committee have completed their analysis of AGC fees versus costs and will be making recommendations on reduction of AGC fees for some applications.

New Business:

  • 7.a Clubhouse Sound System Replacement Proposal – In May 2018, the BOD approved a $10K proposal from Starsound Audio to upgrade the TCTC’s public address system. Therefore, not sure what this “replacement” proposal relates to. Perhaps an entirely separate sound system from the public address system.
  • 7.b Contract Proposal for 2225 Pepperwood SOA Lot – The SOA purchased this 21,396 sq. ft. undeveloped lot for $19,068 in February 2015. Property was in foreclosure and subject to a SOA lien for delinquent assessments. Property was originally placed on the market for $85,000 and subsequently reduced to $79,000 in May 2018. Property is one of seven custom home lots on Pepperwood Ct. that overlook the Country Club’s 4th Fairway, four of which have been built on. Upon observation, the SOA lot appears to be a very undesirable location on which to build, probably why it hasn’t sold in over 4 years. Perhaps an offer to be considered?

The Goats Have Arrived!

Apparently after rejecting the use of manual labor (too expensive), incarcerated individuals (would not go over very well), the Sierra Canyon Association (SCA) decided on the use of goats to clear some SCA common areas of fire fuel vegetation. This to the pleasure of many SCA residents who consider them cute, effective and fun to watch. They are currently munching away on the hillside below the SCA’s Aspen Lodge and will be operating within Sierra Canyon for months to come. Perhaps, the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) might want to investigate this as an element of its Fire Fuel Reduction Project.

Hopefully the fencing put up to contain these lovely creatures will also protect them from our resident coyotes!











Photo courtesy of Joe Bower


March 27th SOA Board Meeting Recap

Following is a recap of topics (obviously paraphrased) discussed and/or approved at the March 27th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting.

Homeowner Comments:

  • Jim Haar and one other homeowner (Dean ?) spoke on the “Ad-HOC Committee for SGCC Equipment Repair” agenda Item. Basically, questioning the need for such a committee. Opinion being that the SGCC just needs to live up to their responsibilities under the Water Facilities Agreement, which is clearly defined, therefore no need for a committee to discuss. Dean expressed a concern that discussions/negotiations with the SGCC could possibly lead to the SOA contributing funds for repairs clearly within the SGCC’s realm of responsibility. This due to lack of SGCC funding to do the required repairs. Bottom line: No committee needed, just a demand for action on the part of the SGCC to perform the required repairs. If they are indeed having revenue problems, perhaps they need to re-assess their organizational structure (e.g., Private or Public). No more financial contributions from the SOA!
  • Steve Guderian spoke up in defense of his agenda item alleging NRS violations pertaining to the Community Standards Committee. Mr. Guderian stated he had a genuine concern on how the committee conducted its business and wanted it make sure all homeowners are afforded due process with regard to cited violations, which he believes not to be the case under the current structure. Hence his right to allege the NRS violations and to pursue resolution via appropriate channels.

Editorial Note: See previous SU Post of March 19th entitled “NRS 116 Alleged Violation Letter to SOA BOD” for discussion and a copy of Mr. Guderians letter to the SOA Board.

  • Nancy Chantos addressed the Board about the formation of an Ad-Hoc Committee or other means to consider adoption of an Emergency Evacuation plan for the Somersett community in the event of fire, earthquake or other natural disasters.
  • Loren Farell, Sierra Canyon Board Member, and past President, again addressed the SOA Board on demanding action to resolve the conflicts between the SOA and the Sierra Canyon Association (SCA). Bringing up the “Secede from the SOA” issue and questioning where the Sierra Canyon assessment contributions to the SOA go.

Editorial Note: As stated in previous SU editorials, whatever the issue, if the SCA Board adopted a less confrontational approach to the SOA Board, perhaps more positive results would evolve. Also, the question as to what do the SCA assessments support, the answer is obvious, just like all other Somersett owners, to maintain the SOA’s common areas. That is, landscaping along the Somersett Parkway, the entrance monuments, the native areas and trails, the East and West Parks, the Canyon9 Golf Course, etc and yes, the Rockery Walls outside of Sierra Canyon proper, whether you use them or not!

Committee Reports:

  • Budget & Finance – As an item of interest to homeowners, the committee advised they were looking at the SOA’s financial records to determine exactly how much the SOA has incurred on Rockery Wall failure related costs.
  • Facilities – The Committee would like to hold a Town Hall Meeting for the TCTC Gym Renovation Project, which was subsequently scheduled for Wednesday, April 10, from 5:30-6:30 pm at TCTC. Mark your calendar!

Old Business:

  • Legal Update – No discussion on this item. However, the SOA Attorney’s monthly “Legal Disclosure” memo disclosed that the Court, in entering their judgment, found in favor of the Plaintiffs (James) and Counter-Defendants (McCullough) against the SOA.

Editorial Note: For a complete summary on this litigation see SU Post of March 13th entitled “The Northgate Neighbors Verdict Is In”.

  • Rockery Wall Update – Update was extracted from the Padovan Consulting LLC’s monthly “SOA Engineering Update Report”.

Editorial Note:  For convenience a copy of this report may be accessed via the following link: “SOA Engineering Update, March 2019“.

  • Discussion on AGC Fee Reduction – No new discussion, still looking at fees versus AGC costs. Presumably to insure that whatever action is taken, a balance is maintained between collected fees and AGC costs.

New Business:

  • The Board approved acceptance of the following proposals:
    • Erosion/Drainage Repair along Twin Rock Ct. to Environmental Protections Services at $,4225.
    • Crack Sealing of Sierra Canyon Walking Trails to West Coast Paving Inc. at $7,160.
    • Gypsy Hill Rockery Wall Change Order (Shotcrete overages) to D.L. Wadsworth at not to exceed $154K
    • Underground Utility Work for TCTC Pool Project to pool Contractor at $5,280
    • Painting of Stairs and Slide for TCTC Pool Project to Fly Right LLC for $6,300.
  • The Board opened bids for the TCTC Gym Equipment Renovations. Three were received at $127K, $129K, and $121K. No decision made, deferred to Staff and Facilities Committee for review and recommendations.
  • Board approved to grant the Greens at Town Center Developer temporary use of six parking spaces within the TCTC parking lot for equipment and material storage. Developer responsible for repair of any damages.
  • Board approved the Access Gate Operations Policy and Sierra Canyon Assessment Collection Box Agreement.

Editorial Note: Copies of these documents were made available in the SU Post of March 25th entitled “March 27th SOA BOD Meeting Update”.

  • Board will move forward with the formation of an “Ad-Hoc Committee for SGCC Equipment Repair”. Committee to consist of Board members Tom Fitzgerald and Frank Leto. A stated objective is to reach an agreement as to who is responsible for what repairs given the shared facilities.

Editorial Note: SU contends that no subsequent agreement between SOA and SGCC Board Members is pertinent given the provisions of the Water Facilities Agreement between the two parties. See SU Posts of March 12th entitled “SOA and SGCC Water Facilities Agreement” and March 11th entitled “Golf Course Water Supply System Report” for details on this subject.

  • The SOA Attorney, although in attendance at the meeting, did not specifically address the alleged violations of NRS Statutes as submitted by homeowner Steve Guderian. Rather, he advised that they are taking them under advisement and will provide a legal response later.