Sierra Canyon, Somersett, Villages, The Vue – Your Community Forum

Submitted by Steve Guderian as an addendum to his previous post

To the SU Community,

I forgot to add a very important piece of information in my previous post, as required by NRS the SC BOD did go out to the community and obtained a vote that was 6 to 1 in favor of going forward with the lawsuit against Pulte. Below is Mr. Bower’s response to this fact in the SC discussion board thread, Mr. Bower’s post was made on 1-31-18 at 2:52 PM:

“What has happened in both Somersett and Sierra Canyon is that the boards have added wording of their own to the voting instructions stating that the board may extend the ballot to be received by date deadline at its option. In real life that means that if we the board do not get the necessary number of votes we want to proceed in the manner we want we will allow more votes to come in until we have the number we want and that that number includes the 50% Plus One number needed. In other words, unlike most elections voting continues until the desired result has been achieved.

That may not be “fair” in the minds of many, but the many don’t conduct the election. The few do.

In one Somersett election the ballots were opened on a weekly basis by staff and one or two board members so the board could know whether to extend the voting deadline or not. Owners didn’t know anything other than more time to vote was being given. Don’t believe that happened? Well, I was physically present at some of the vote count sessions to help count and have documented notes on the number of For and Against votes and their count dates.

There is no “BY LAW” (where an it be read?) that “you have to go out for another vote . . . . . .” Actually the election is over at first count, but since the desired result by the Board was not reached, it enacts its pre-stated option and extends the ballot must be received by deadline.

A non-returned ballot is a NO vote!”

This piece of information is wrong on every level. The simplest way to show this is by looking at the very last statement, the one stating “A non-returned ballot is a NO vote!”

Historically, and I am sure that most SU readers know this, a majority of the residents is never reached on the first ballot. If the ballot is worded in the negative or converse form of what they really want the board can go through with any action they want after one vote. In other words, simply word the ballot such that a “NO” vote allows the board to do whatever they want to do. This way all of the non-returned ballots, which is easily the majority of ballots, is a “NO” and if what Mr. Bower is saying were true the board could move forward anyway they want to.

The facts, and the law speak for themselves.

Respectfully
Steve Guderian
Sierra Canyon Resident

Advertisements

Submitted by Steve Guderian in response to Mr. Bower’s previous post:

Ms. Colquhoun and the rest of the SU members.

Mr. Bower is leaving a few facts out of his post that are critical to know and all need to be made aware of.

The first fact that Mr. Bower neglected to state and for Mr. Colguhoun, an email blast from the SC staff went out to SC residents back in late January, as I recall, explaining what the lawsuit was all about, and that to date less than $10K has been spent on legal fees for both lawsuits and Pulte is now talking with the SC attorney about both lawsuits. A complete explanation of the lawsuit has been provide to the SC residents. Another related fact about the whole lawsuit, that has been discussed multiple times and Mr. Bower continues to neglect to mention, is that at least two prior SC board of directors neglected to file a construction defects lawsuit under chapter 40 BEFORE the 10 year statue of limitations ran out. The last board that filed this lawsuit Mr. Bower is complaining about had no ability to file against Pulte until they made a mistake and gave the SC community a chance to take a second bite from the apple under Chapter 116, and an entirely different strategy. The cost to replace the dehumidifier, multiple expert reports and estimates put the cost at $350K to $500K. So for a cost of less than $10K at this time the SC community has a chance to save a whole lot of money.

In order to be fair and open to everybody, I was on the SC BOD when all of this took place and I was part of the fact gathering and decision making process.

Additional facts Mr. Bower has neglected to bring forward;

1. Mr. Bower has a personal agenda for continuing to push this matter.
2. Back on 1-29-18 Mr. Bower posted his complaint and issues about this matter on the Sierra Canyon Discussion board.
3. There were 27 posts associated with Mr. Bower’s initial post on this matter and it was this community involvement in this issue that resulted in the fact based email blast from the staff to the SC community.
4. The second to the last post in 1-29-18 SC discussion board started by Mr. Bower was on 1-31-18.
5. In other words, the facts came out in the discussion and email blast and the discussion died on the SC 6. This particular post is nothing more that a copy and paste from Mr. Bower’s post on the SC discussion board 3 days ago, 2-13-18.
7. Mr. Bower did state in his post that what was posted [sic] is from the SC discussion board, but he neglected to tell the SU readers that he posted it there.
8. The structure of the SC discussion board is that reposting in a discussion thread pulls the thread back up to the top of the discussion topics.
9. There are NO new posts in this discussions topic on the SC discussion board.
10. As stated above Mr. Bower reopened this discussion topic on 2-13-14, this was one day before the final day of voting in the SC board election.

Regarding my statement in 1 above, it is not my place to talk about Mr. Bower’s agenda in this matter as it is an issue that he needs to bring up to the community, or to deny.

Respectfully
Steve Guderian
Sierra Canyon Resident

SC Dehumidifier Litigation

Posted by Joe Bower – Sierra Canyon Homeowner

Part 1

On August 29, 2017 Sierra Canyon via its lawyer, Eva Segerblom, Esq. (formerly represented Somersett with the Maddox law firm where she is now a partner) filed a civil suit against PN II, Inc., (Pulte) et. al. – the developer of Sierra Canyon as well as potentially others who participated in the design, development and installation of the dehumidifier in the indoor pool room at the Aspen Lodge.

On January 19, 2018 the judge granted without prejudice PN II’s motion to dismiss the action.

Part II

Copied from the Sierra Canyon website:

Hello Fellow Sierra Canyon Owners,

Late morning today, February 13, 2018 (conveniently the day before our board election thus shutting out any input from the to be newly elected board members) an appeal was filed by our attorney in the Pulte Dehumidifier Case. So the Case continues.

As has been mentioned, the executive board may meet in executive session to consult with the attorney for the association on matters relating to proposed or pending litigation.

That right must be respected, especially when legal strategy is being discussed. HOWEVER, once a document has been filed with the court it is public. After that has happened, I and other owners believe our board should provide as detailed an update as possible to all dues paying unit owners.

An important a matter as this one should not wait for a board meeting at which a small percentage of owners attend.

We get bombarded with association social/Lodge activities related emails, but zilch on association business. Hopefully that will change once some new members of the board have been seated.

It has been confirmed by the SOA that the requirements of NRS 116.31088 “Meetings regarding civil actions; requirements for commencing or ratifying certain civil actions ….”, will apply to the SOA’s Rockery Wall civil action process (see previous post of February 5th entitled “Rockery Wall Defect Litigation”).

This NRS 116.31088 statute (paraphrased) requires the following:

  • That the SOA provide notification of and conduct an owner meeting to discuss the proposed civil action,
  • That the proposed civil action be ratified via majority owner vote or written agreement.
  • That prior to ratification, the Association provide a written statement to owners that includes a cost estimate for the civil action, including attorney fees, and an explanation of the benefits and/or adverse consequences of the civil action.
  • That once settled, a disclosure of the terms and conditions of the settlement at the next BOD meeting.

In consideration of the above, the SOA BOD intends to schedule a meeting for late February and the sending out of ballots for owner approval.

For those interested in a complete reading of NRS 116.31088, go to the “References” tab and click on the “NRS 116 Common-Interest Ownership Uniform Act” link. This will take you to the NRS 116 website wherein you can access all of its provisions.

At the January 24th BOD Meeting it was revealed that the SOA had instituted legal action (i.e., a Chapter 40 Construction Defect, Complaint for Damages) with respect to defects and deficiencies in construction of the SOA Common Area Rockery Walls. (Reference: Washoe County District Court Case No. CV17-02427). Defendants in the legal action are identified as:

  • Somersett Development Company LTD
  • Somersett LLC (currently dissolved)
  • Somersett Development Corporation (currently dissolved)
  • Parsons Bros Rockeries, CA Inc.
  • Parsons Bros Rockeries, CA Inc. dba Parsons Walls
  • Q&D Construction Inc.

The SOA’s General Allegations against the Defendants include the following: (Note: the CV17-02427 article number is referenced in parenthesis).

  1. That the Defendants “failed to properly and adequately plan, design, investigate, inspect, supervise and construct the Subject Property”. (27)
  2. That the defects and deficiencies include: “excessive or inadequate voids with no, or inadequate, chinking rocks; failure to use filter fabric to encase the drain rock or otherwise in construction of rockery walls; drain rock and or retained soil spilling through voids; inadequate, improper or otherwise bad placement of rockery wall rocks: over-steepened and or non-uniform face batter of rockery walls; and inadequate stabilization of the rockery walls”. (31)
  3. That “Based upon investigation and testing performed by experts retained by Plaintiff, Plaintiff …. alleges that the above-referenced defects are pervasive throughout the Subject Property, …. .and that said Defendants …. had actual knowledge of many of the said deficiencies at the time of construction ….”. (32)
  4. That “All of the said defects which are the subject of this action were described and accompanied by an expert report” (Reference: American Geotechnical Inc. “Preliminary Evaluation – Somersett Master Association – Rockery Walls, dated December 22, 2017). (33)
  5. That “the defects and deficiencies …. are, among other things, violations or breaches of local building and construction practices, industry standards, governmental codes and restrictions, manufacturer requirements and/or product specifications at the time the Subject Property was planned, designed, constructed and sold”. (35)
  6. That “the deficiencies in the construction, design, planning, and/or construction of the Subject Properties described in this Complaint were known or should have been known by Defendants at all times relevant hereto”. (36)
  7. That “the conduct of Defendants, as more fully described herein, was and remains the actual and proximate cause of general and special damages to the Plaintiff”. (38)

The Complaint is an 18 page document that, in addition to the “General Allegations” summarized above, contains numerous articles under the following topics: 1) Negligence and Negligence Per Se, 2) Breach of Express and Implied Warranties of Fitness, Merchantability, Quality and Habitability Pursuant to Chapter 116 and Common Law, 3) Negligent Misrepresentation and/or Failure to Disclose, 4) Declaratory Relief, and 5) Breach of NRS 116.1113 and the Implied Covenant of Good Faith.

In the Complaint, the SOA is seeking a judgment of damages against the Defendants for the following; 1) costs of repair and/or replacement of defects, 2) costs and expenditures to correct, cure or mitigate damages caused or that will be caused by defects and/or deficiencies, 3) losses associated with the defects and/or deficiencies , including loss of use, relocation, and incidental expenses, 4) attorney fees and expert witness expenses, 5) relief as is necessary for a just adjudication of this matter, and 6) prejudgment interest.

The SOA is also demanding a trial by Jury.

Following is a recap of actions/approvals taken on the referenced Agenda items at the January 24th SOA BOD Meeting. See previous posts entitled “January 24th BOD Meeting Packet” and “January 24th BOD Meeting Agenda” for all agenda topics and associated details.

3.b Facilities Committee – The BOD approved Glenda Powell (past SOA BOD President) for service on the Facilities Committee. Also approved the issuance of four quest passes to eligible owners for 2018 usage at The Club at Town Center (TCTC).

6.a Legal Update, Somersett Owners Association v. Somersett Development Company, et. al – Civil action regarding Rockery Wall defects are in early stages of litigation proceedings. Defendants are the Somersett Community Developer and currently unidentified “John Does”. The BOD advised that owner notifications and voting process are required and will be forthcoming.

6.c Pool Redesign & Project Management Proposal – Proposals from Ohison Lavole Corporation ($4,500) and Padovan Consulting Corp ($11,600) for TCTC pool redesign and project management services were accepted. This to support construction of proposed pool modifications (i.e., pool slide feature) that can fall within budgetary constraints. Previous approved design resulted in a construction bid of $1.2M that far exceeded the original design cost estimate of $278K.

7.a Ratify Engagement Agreement for Rockery Wall Litigation – The Litigation Agreement between the SOA and its Attorneys (Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP) pertaining to item 6.a above was approved.

7.b Town Square Snow Removal – Proposal from Signature Landscapes, LLC for snow removal services was accepted. Proposal amount based on hourly rates.

7.d Saddle Tree Trail Common Area Repair – The Nevada Environmental Consulting, LLC proposal of $15,524 for soil erosion mitigation and ditch cleanup work was accepted.

7.e Path/Sidewalk Patching (Sealed Bids) – Bids for asphalt patching of common area pathways, sidewalks and gated area streets were received from the following vendors: 1) Vega Asphalt Paving at $77,584, 2) Vance Brothers at $152,743 and 3) Sierra Nevada Construction at $53,200. The BOD voted to accept the Sierra Nevada Construction Bid.

7.g SGCC Proposed Method for Billing Electricity for Canyon9 – Common pumping stations supply water to both the Somersett Country Club (SGCC) and Canyon9 Golf Courses. The SGCC submitted a proposed allocation of pump electricity costs between the SOA and the SGCC. The BOD was concerned that the proposed cost allocation favored the SGCC and tabled acceptance pending further evaluation.

7.h Computer(s) Upgrade Proposal – Proposal from IQ technology Solutions of $5,750 for new computer equipment was accepted.

7.j 2017 Audit Proposal – Proposal from Hilburn & Lein CPAs, not to exceed $6975, for 2017 Audit services was accepted.

Pre Meeting Homeowner Comments on Agenda Topics

  1. A question was raised as to whether the Rockery Wall Defect litigation against the Somersett Development Company fall under Nevada Statutes requiring notifications, disclosures, meetings and owner approvals. Also will the Somersett Country Club be a party to this litigation as a plaintiff or defendant, given that an estimated $500K of repair work is required on the SGCC leased land from the SOA. Subsequent BOD response was yes to the former and no response on the later.
  2. An analysis of the SGCC proposed billing split for electricity costs associated with pumping stations providing water to the SGCC and Canyon9 golf courses was presented, with the conclusion that the proposed split was unfair to the SOA. Subsequent BOD response concurred that this was a valid concern and action on this item was deferred pending further evaluation.

Post Meeting Homeowner Comments on Any Topic 

  1. A homeowner gave a lengthy presentation on what is considered a significant fire danger due to dense vegetation on common area slopes adjacent to their property and why it cannot be cleared in a timely manner. BOD response was that limited fire mitigation funds are available and, therefore, would first be applied to higher priority areas.
  2. The General Manager Report summarizing SOA activities contained in the BOD Meeting Packet was deemed very informative and the decision to publish monthly and post on the SOA website a good one. It was suggested that the posting of Committee Reports on the website should also be undertaken.
  3. A question as to why the BOD continues to dodge whether or not the SOA will go after the SGCC for Rockery Wall repair costs on their leased land was raised. BOD response was that legal considerations prohibited any reply at this time.

The January 24th BOD Meeting Packet in now available on the SOA Website (www.somersett.org) under the SOA/Committees and Meetings tab. The Meeting Packet provides detailed information in support of Agenda topics. A summary of which follows.

Note: SU apologizes for the lateness of this post. However, the BOD Meeting Packet was not made available until the same day (January 24th) as the BOD Meeting. Hopefully this will not be a standard practice.

3.0 Committee Reports

  • Finance – Looking at a $100K discount for early payoff of the Developer loans for The Club at Town Center (TCTC) and Canyon 9 Golf Course. Under legal review along with the Rockery Wall litigation, see Item 7.a below.
  • General Manager – For the first time a detailed General Manager’s report has been included in the BOD Meeting Packet. This report contains a detailed summary of: 1) Aesthetic Guidelines Committee (AGC) and Community Standards Committee (CSC) actions, 2) the Club at Town Center (TCTC) operations, activities and usage factors, 3) updates on SOA Special Projects, Maintenance, Landscaping and Engineering activities. This is a very informative report that will continue to be a part of the Meeting Packet in the future.

4.0 December Meeting Minutes  –  A comprehensive recap as to what occurred at the December 14th 2017 BOD meeting. A much improved recap over previous administrations.

6.a Legal Updates

  • Rockery Wall Defects – The SOA has filed civil action against the Somersett Developer, Somersett Development Company, and other parties regarding defects in the common area rockery walls. Proceedings are in the early stages with no reported details or identification as to who the other parties are.
  • Northgate Lot Expansion Litigation – Settlement agreements have been reached with twelve of the fourteen Somersett owners who expanded their lot size by purchase of Northgate Golf Course parcels. Litigation centered around SOA control over the added land. Although the SOA Attorney update memo did not list settlement details, it has been separately reported that for agreements currently recorded: 1) owners have agreed that SOA CC&R’s will apply to the lot expansion property, 2) the SOA will waive AGC fees for already performed or planned property improvements, and 3) each owner will receive a $500 settlement amount.

6.b Rockery Wall & Slope Repairs  –  All projects (SBE, Timaru Ct, Trail Ridge) are under construction. The SBE repair work is nearly complete, Timaru Ct 75% complete and Trail Ridge 30% complete.

6.c Pool Redesign & Project Management Proposal  –  This topic relates to a modification of TCTC pool primarily with regard to relocation and expansion of the pool slide feature. The original approved design resulted in a construction cost that was overpriced and well above the budgeted amount. Therefore, an activity is underway to come up with a redesign that is within budgetary constraints. In this regard, a proposal from Padovan Consulting, LLC has been received for consideration. Proposal is for pool redesign and project management services. Proposed amount totals approximately $11.600 which includes both fixed price and T&M services. No estimate as to what the proposed redesign will cost to implement.

7.a Engagement Agreement for Rockery Wall Litigation  –  A proposed agreement, including fees, between the SOA and its Attorneys (WRSS&R LLP) to represent the SOA in its claims against others with regard to the Rockery Wall deficiencies. Fees are as follows: $375/hr for Partners of Counsel, $285-$350/hr Other Attorneys, $160/hr Paralegals and $120/hr Clerks.

7.b Town Square Snow Removal  =  Proposal from Signature Landscapes LLC for snow removal services at Town Center Properties. Required because Reno Green (previous snow removal contractor) will no longer be providing landscape services at the Town Center. The Town Center landscape contract was awarded to Signature Landscape at the last BOD meeting. Snow removal costs are based on hourly rates for type of equipment utilized. Trigger point for services is a 2 inch snow depth.

7.c Town Square Budget  –  The “Management Oversight” expense item (performed by FirstServices Residential) for the newly implemented Town Center Operating fund has been reduced by $700/month (a $8400 annual saving).

7.d Saddle Tree Trail Common Area Repair  –  A $16K proposal for slope erosion stabilization and ditch cleanup work in the common area between Saddle Tree Trail and Placerwood Trail.

7.e Path/Sidewalk Patch  –  Opening of bids for asphalt patching of common area pathways, sidewalks, access roads and gated area streets. Areas effected are described in the Bid Instructions document contained within the BOD Meeting Packet.

7.g SGCC Proposed Method for Billing Electricity for Canyon9  –  A breakdown of the electricity costs associated with the pumps (Mogul and Morgan Pointe Stations) supplying water to the SGCC and Canyon9 golf courses. Total annual costs are approximately $16.7K, of which $6.4K (38%) is the proposed allocation to Canyon9. No explanation as to how the SGCC vs Canyon9 usage ratios were determined.

Posted by Geoffrey Brooks  – SOA Member

I attended the 1/9/18 NAB 5 meeting, primarily to find out about Ventana Ridge (166.8 acre site), 85 houses (SF9 lots) proposed within 700’ of the Painted River Trail/Peavine Creek Road. The ReImagine Reno plan calls for a moratorium on all tract development above 6000’. As there were no maps, no elevations for Ventana Ridge, I was curious to know how this would be “nestled” into the hillside and how high.

This part of the meeting was postponed as the builder is making revisions to his plan. On the 6000’ rule, I was told that the City cannot stop someone from developing his property above that elevation, if they choose to do so… However, the City can have a one dwelling/lot rule, and the owner is responsible for the infra-structure and has to pay to have it connected to the city! That is, no tract housing (like Ventana Ridge) up there! Another fact that came out is that developable land is in short supply and “dirt” is selling for $300/sq ft in the downtown area. This has to be added to the lack of construction workers…(who apparently can’t now live here due to the housing shortage).

At the NAB 5 meeting there was a fascinating presentation by the Truckee Meadows Parks Foundation, where private financial support is solicited for new and existing park infra-structure. TM Parks sponsor Park-based educational and recreational programs and act as mechanism through which citizens can advocate for their parks. They raise funding by encouraging residents to join, and better still participate in their “Discover Your Parks Walks” (free interpretative one mile walks for the community at local parks). They run an invaluable “Student Stewards” Program where they use our parks as a “Learning Laboratory”, and a Junior Naturalist Program.

At the November Board Meeting, I recall Nancy Chontos saying that they were seeking additional funding for West Park to supplement the expected $ short-fall from the City of Reno.

I attended the 1/18/18 SOA “Communication Committee” meeting, as Nancy is also a member of this committee as well as the West Park Committee. I wanted to make sure that we were aligned with the Truckee Meadows Parks Foundation. We are. There is a Somersett West Park page on their web site , dedicated to help Somersett raise monies to ensure that it is completed in a timely fashion. (Somersett’s new West Park was not mentioned in the NAB5 presentation)
Toll Brothers, along with their massive excavation/terra-forming program in Village 6, are lending a hand.

Here is a link to the Somersett West Park page in the Truckee Meadows Park Foundation web site.

https://www.tmparksfoundation.org/somersett-west-park

January 24th BOD Meeting

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

January 24th BOD Meeting Agenda

Given that the Board Meeting Packet for the January 24th meeting is not yet available on the Association website, details associated with the agenda items cannot be addressed on at this time. When the BOD Meeting Packet is released, further information will be posted.

Note that a new category “Board Member Comments” has been added as an Agenda topic for the first time. It will be interesting to see what this entails.

“What does the SGCC do for the Community”

Perhaps Mr. Guderian’s inquiry from his “Golf Course Knowledge” post could have been better phrased as:

“What does the Community do for the SGCC”.

There is no question that the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC) with its lovely green fairways and open space enhances the beauty of the Somersett Community, and possibly, although some may disagree as to what extent, property values as well. Also, as captured under Mr. Retter’s (“yogiwan”) comment, SOA owners do have certain access privileges to SGCC facilities. However, these did not come without a price. A brief history follows:

  • As originally conceived, the SGCC was owned and operated as a separate and independent entity from the Somersett Owners Association (SOA), with no SOA say over its existence, ownership or operation. Hence, Somersett owners originally had no access privileges to SGCC facilities.
  • In 2010, facing financial difficulties, the SGCC owner, Somersett Development Company (SDC), accomplished early turnover of SGCC ownership to its Equity Members, espousing some positive projections in doing so. However, revenue versus expenses for that year resulted in a $560K loss.
  • In 2011, the first year under Equity Member ownership, the SGCC’s financial woes continued, with a revenue/expense loss of $628K. To offset these losses, in December 2011, the SDC controlled SOA Board of Directors (BOD) voted to divert $15/month of owner assessments to the SGCC in exchange for some limited SGCC access privileges (i.e., the misnamed “Management & Lease Agreement”). The agreement was to begin in January 2012 and extend through December 2014 with subsequent three and four-year renewal periods. During this period, revenues provided to the SGCC via SOA owner assessments totaled approximately $1,235,000, which helped to keep it in the black.
  • Needless to say, this agreement sparked considerable controversy within the Community. A complaint was subsequently filed with the Nevada Real Estate Division against the SOA BOD, which challenged its authority to enter into such an agreement without owner vote. Also, citing violations to both the Somersett CC&Rs and Nevada Statues (NRS-116). After a considerable amount of wasted legal and bureaucratic time, the complaint was upheld by the Nevada Attorney Generals office with the remedy being for the SOA (under a now all owner BOD) to modify the original agreement, revise the CC&R’s accordingly and to submit it for owner ratification.
  • In subsequent negotiations with the SGCC, the original agreement was replaced by a “Real Property Purchase Agreement”, the CC&R’s modified to permit such purchase, and subsequently ratified in late 2014 by SOA owner majority vote. Under the approved agreement, the SOA purchased the SGCC land and water rights for $2,750,000 with a subsequent leaseback 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 optional 20 year renewal periods at the sole discretion of the SGCC.
  • Since ratification of the Real Property Purchase Agreement, no subsequent financial dealings between the SOA and the SGCC have taken place. However, there is a potential issue regarding who pays for the Rockery Wall failures occurring on SGCC leased land. Some (including a former BOD member) belueve this liability (possibly as much as $500K) lies with the SGCC under terms of the Purchase Agreement. Currently all repair work is being paid for by the SOA via Common Area funding. Is there litigation in the offing?

SGCC Membership Status

  • After SDC turnover to the Equity Members in late 2010, Equity membership stood at 188 out of a 450-member target. Since then, equity membership growth has been rather slow increasing to 241 at the start of 2017. This does not include an unknown quantity of “Preview Memberships” for those wanting to “test the waters”.
  • Per the SGCC website (www.somersettgolfandcountryclub.com), Equity member dues for 2017 were set at $425/month plus a $150/quarter food and beverage minimum. Preview Memberships were  $250/month plus a $150/quarter food and beverage minimum. Monthly dues do not include golf cart fees. The SGCC is currently offering their equity memberships with “No contribution at this time”. How this may relate to any deferred payment was not published.  Note that the price for an SGCC equity membership ranged from $25K at inception to a high of $40K, only to drop drastically during the recession.

Comments Welcome