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

The Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Director (BOD) positions currently held by Tom Fitzgerald (President), Ryan Burns (Treasurer) and Steve Guderian (Secretary) are up for re-election this year. Indications are that two of the preceding will not be seeking re-election. SU believes it important that incumbents disclose their intentions in this regard, as it may influence the decision of others to run or not run. All three open positions are for a two-year term. The election process being as follows:

  • Association members desiring to serve the community via the BOD must complete the required Candidate Form and return it by September 30th to the SOA office at The Club at Town Center (TCTC). Along with the required Form, Candidates may also include an optional one page “Candidate Statement” supporting their candidacy along with a “Head Shot”. Candidate Forms are available on the SOA website ( under the “Seeking Candidates for Open SOA Board Positions” News posting. A copy may also be downloaded via the following link:

SOA 2018 BOD Candidate Form 

  • Election Ballots along with the Candidate Form and optional Candidate Statements will be mailed to all Association Members by October 15th.
  • Although not yet announced, if past practice holds, one or two “Meet the Candidate” nights will be scheduled shortly after the ballot mailings. This to allow Association Members to meet the Candidates, listen to their responses on fixed questions (prepared by the Communication Committee) and ask questions of their own.
  • Ballots must be returned (in the provided secret ballot envelope) to the SOA by 1 PM on November 19th. It is expected that, as in the past, ballot boxes will be installed at both The Club at Town Center and Aspen Lodge for convenience. They may also be mailed as long as they are received by the 1 PM November 19th deadline.
  • Ballots will be opened and counted at the November 19th Annual Homeowner Meeting at TCTC. Successful Candidates will be announced and will officially take office at that time.

Needless to say, new participation on the BOD is always a good thing. If you feel qualified and have a desire to serve your community, you are encouraged to “throw your hat in the ring” and submit your Board Candidate Form and Statement.

Any Candidate wishing to announce and publish any document supporting his or her candidacy on this website may do so via email to


It has been three months since this website published an update (accessible via the following link: May 22 “ROCKERY WALL LITIGATION UPDATE”) on the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) lawsuit against the Somersett Development Company et. al. pertaining to the SOA Common Area Rockery Wall Defects. What has transpired since then? Not much with regards to resolutions or settlements. As usual, the wheels of justice move slowly, meanwhile the SOA Attorneys continue to rack up their $285-$375 per hour legal fees.

In the May 22nd posting, reference was made to the “First Amended Complaint for Damages (Corrected)” document, filed with the Court on May 3rd, which updated the original Chapter 40 Complaint for Damages against Somersett Development Company, Q&D Construction and Parsons Brother Rockeries.. Access to this document is available via the following Link: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (CORRECTED)

Subsequent to the updated complaint, documents filed with the Washoe County District Court (Case # CV17-02427) include the following, filing dates noted:

• DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL by both the SOA and Somersett Development Company (June 21 & August 17)

• ORDER OF RECUSAL by District Court Judge David Hardy as being a member of the Somersett Owners Association. Case was subsequently transferred to another department (July 12)


This document contains Q&D’s response to the SOA’s Complaint for Damages. The first 15 pages are responses to each allegation contained in the SOA’s Complaint. Basically, all responses are repetitive in which Q&D denies each and every allegation. Pages 16-20 “Affirmative Defenses”, puts forth 21 stated defenses against the SOA Claim. These include references to: plaintiff misconduct & negligence; statutes of limitations & repose; doctrines of estoppel, waiver, laches, & unclean hands; acts of God; acts by others; and limited liability should the Complaint for Damages prevail. A reprint of Q&D’s “Affirmative Defenses” contained in the Court filing document are accessible via the following link: Q&D CONSTRUCTION DEFENSES TO SOA CLAIM FOR DAMAGES


Document filed on behalf of Somersett Development Company, Somersett LLC and Somersett Development Corporation. The first 5 pages contain repetitive denials of all allegations contained in the SOA Complaint. Pages 6 and 7 offer up 11 supplemental “Defenses” which include references to: statutes of repose & limitations; acts by others; improper acts and conduct on part of the plaintiff; doctrines of consent & estoppel: and violation of NRS 116.31088 (majority owner approval of lawsuit).  A reprint of Somersett Development Company’s “Defenses” contained in the Court filing document are accessible via the following link: SOMERSETT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DEFENSES TO SOA CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Pages 8-13 of this document represents a Cross-Claim by Somersett Development against co-defendants Q&D Construction and Parsons Brothers Rockeries. This Cross-Claim, without admitting any truth to the SOA’s Claim for Damages, basically alleges that the matters referred to in the SOA Claim were “proximately caused by the acts and omissions of Cross-Defendants”.


This document contains Parsons Brothers Rockeries response to the SOA’s Complaint for Damages in which they deny all allegations contained in the SOA Complaint. Also, some additional stated “Affirmative Defenses” which reference: improper acts on the part of the plaintiff; statutes of limitation or repose; violation of NRS Chapter 40 provisions; and the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, accord, satisfaction & latches. A reprint of Parsons Brothers “Affirmative Defenses” contained in the Court filing document are accessible via the following link: PARSONS BROTHERS DEFENSES TO SOA CLAIM FOR DAMAGES


A response to the Somersett Development Company Cross-Claim in which Parsons Brothers denies all allegations contained therein and offers up some “Affirmative Defenses” to the allegations.  Since these do not represent a response to the SOA Claim for Damages, but rather against Somersett Development Company, a reprint has not been included.

Other Activities Pertaining to the Rockery Wall Lawsuit:

• A Mediation session between the litigants was held on June 21st. However, per the SOA Attorney, “Mediation proceedings are confidential, so the details of the session cannot be disclosed”.

• The SOA response to the Intervention Affidavit filed by a Somersett Homeowner with the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) was submitted on July 30th to the NRED Investigator. This Intervention Affidavit (see previous post by clicking on: ROCKERY WALL LAWSUIT NRED INTERVENTION) alleges that the SOA violated NRS 16.31088 by not obtaining majority homeowner approval for proceeding with the Rockery Wall Lawsuit. No results to date on the NRED investigation into this matter.

• SOA incurred Legal Fees as of June 30th, 2018 related to the Rockery Wall Defect issues are as follows:

1. Somersett Development Company et. al Lawsuit: $138K  ($44K in 2017, $94K in 2018)

2. Dispute with Country Club:  $28K  ($13K in 2017, $15K in 2018, to date, no information regarding the SOA dispute with the Country Club has been made available to Association members).

3. NRED Intervention Affidavit:  $8K

Comments Anyone?

SNPAA Wine Sharing Party

The following posted in support of the Sierra Nevada Performing Arts Association (SNPAA). SNPAA ia non-profit organization established to support the performing arts in Northern Nevada and to provide scholarships to local talented students:

Hello: I am pleased to invite you to our Sierra Nevada Performing Arts Association Underwriting and Wine Sharing Party at the Villa Ciorciari in Arrowcreek on Saturday, August 25. (Details below) This will be a very casual summer party. Tickets are $35 each, which can be purchased on-line at by going to our Events page, or purchased by check by printing the form below and mailing it to our address for receipt by August 17. We are also asking that you bring along a bottle of wine per person for sharing with others that night. We will be auctioning off a Wine Wagon, as well as, implementing our usual 50/50 Raffle. Hope you can join us. Please feel free to pass this invitation on to others. If you have already responded, thank you and just consider this a reminder. Joe Morabito

P. S. If you would like to donate wine with a retail value of $25 or more per bottle for our Wine Wagon Auction, just let me know and we will pick it up.

Joseph Morabito
Sierra Nevada Performing Arts Association
+1.949.500.0753 Cell

Project Site Mud Flow

The following memo submitted by Joe Bower with permission of the author:

Village 3 Neighbors,

On July 21st, there was a heavy rain storm which caused a large amount of mud to flow from the Toll Brother’s project onto Hawk Meadow Trail, Somersett Parkway, and into storm drains.

A few days ago I received an e-mail from the City of Reno Engineering Department regarding this incident. There was a meeting recently with a representative from the City of Reno Engineering Department, the developer, their contractor representatives, and inspectors from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. The meeting was held to discuss the Stormwater plan for the development.

According to information provided by the City Engineer’s Department, several items were identified for improvement. These items will be inspected and recorded during follow up inspections by both the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and the City of Reno.

Toll Brothers is responsible for the clean up of the mud, and the City Engineering Department indicates the clean up activities are still in progress. According to the Engineering Department, there is a high clay content in the mud, and the clay has “cemented” into the roadway. Too much water during street sweeping will turn the material back into mud. Aggressive street sweeping operations when the material is dry creates too much dust violating the Dust Control Permit with Washoe County Air Quality. Consequently, cleaning up the clay on the street is not an easy task.

If I hear more I will let you know. Keep your fingers crossed the officials from the City of Reno and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection take this situation seriously.

Ken McNeil

Meeting Agenda

The finalized BOD Meeting Agenda may be accessed by clicking on the following link:

July 25th BOD Meeting Agenda – Finalized

A recap of some of the more significant items discussed and/or approved follow:

Committee Recommendations:

  • Budget & Finance – Recommended approval of the Dennis Banks Construction Proposal for TCTC Pool Redesign Project. However, expressed some concerns regarding proposal price, exclusions and permit fees.
  • Facilities – Recommended appointment of Davis Nisenfeld to the Committee. Appointment not approved on a 2 – 2 vote (Board Member Ryan Burns was not present). Perhaps some hold-over concerns from Mr. Nisenfeld’s prior service on the Board?

Old Business

  • Legal Update – The SOA Attorney letter addressing all pending litigation may be viewed via the following link; “July SOA Legal Update Letter”. Nothing new on the Rockery Wall lawsuit. Letter includes a new item regarding a Homeowner complaint for an improper fine and non-approval of architectural changes.
  • Website Standard Terms and Conditions Policy – Not yet ready for approval. Will addresses homeowner use and restrictions for SOA Website access.
  • TCTC Pool Redesign Proposals – All proposals, four total, consisting of Pool Construction ($478,183) and related Surveying ($5,500 – $8,500), Materials Testing ($3,871) and Structural Engineering ($2,500) Services were unanimously approved. Not yet addressed is a Project Management Services proposal to be provided by Padovan Consulting. Per the July GM report It has been estimated that the total project cost, with contingencies, could amount to $560K, which does not include funds spent to date. It was interesting to note that these proposals were unanimously approved by the four BOD members present. This after much discussion, between Board and Finance Committee members, which were mostly negative, citing funding and priority concerns.

New Business

  • Somersett Fuels Mitigation Proposal – Approved a proposal from High Sierra Forestry to oversee implementation of the SOA’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Proposal based on an hourly rate ($75/hr) with an estimate between $2250 and $6600. Approved for a $4800 spending limit. Note: The SOA’s “Wildfire Fuels Assessment & CWPP Plan” prepared by Resource Concepts, Inc. in June 2017 is available for viewing under the References Tab on this website.
  • Collaboration Policy – A proposed SOA Collaboration Policy Resolution put forth “to foster a friendly relationship through mutual cooperation in the business dealings between Somersett Owners Association, Sierra Canyon Association, and The Vue Association”. The Policy addresses several areas of cooperation, collaboration and coordination. There was a discussion on why such a document was even needed and how it might impact the SOA’s cost of doing business. Discussion ended without any action being taken. For some reason, The Villages was not included in the proposed Collaboration Policy, could this be related to FirstService Residential being the common Community Manager for the three associations covered by the Policy?
  • Delinquent Assessment Collection Agreement – An updated Agreement with Red Rock Financial Services (a subsidiary of FirstService Residential) was approved. The Agreement, for the most part,  is a no cost model with collection fees being paid for by the Homeowner.

The Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) open meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 25th 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:

July 25th BOD Meeting Agenda

Note that the Business Items to be discussed are pretty sparse this month (pending any revision updates, which is usually the case), and deal primarily with TCTC pool redesign effort. Hopefully some final resolution will be made on this project as it has been dragging on for well over a year now, usually resulting in another budgetary surprise and unintended delays.

The BOD Meeting Packet, which provided additional information on agenda items has not yet been published by the SOA. When released it will be made available on the Association website under the SOA/Committees and Meetings tab (requires login). If relevant, this website will provide updates and comments.

The following is a recap of what transpired at the subject meeting held on July 9th at TCTC:


  • Board Members – Tom Fitzgerald, Jason Roland, Frank Leto
  • FirstService Residential (FSR) Representatives – Melissa Ramsey, Robin Bolson
  • Homeowners – 12

Needless to say, the meeting did not attract many homeowners. Perhaps this because entertaining specific changes to the Governing Documents was not part of the agenda. That is, no opportunity for homeowners to express their pet peeves.

Melissa Ramsey (FSR Area Manager) and Tiffany Roland (Homeowner) chaired the meeting. They summarized the SOA’s Governing Documents as well as other SOA documents and what would be required to change them (for a copy of the meeting handout, click on Governing Documents). A summary of documents discussed, along with additional SU provided info, follows:

  • Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) Chapter 116 Common-Interest Ownership (Uniform Act) – Nevada Law enacted by the State legislature. It establishes the regulations and requirements that all HOA’s must follow. NRS 116 trumps any SOA Governing Document or BOD Action.
  • Somersett Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Approved by the City of Reno, the Somersett PUD is a multifaceted document, prepared by the Master Developer (Somersett Development Company), which describes the overall Somerset Community Development project. This includes all residential, commercial, common areas, community centers, recreational facilities, trails, parks, etc. and their related Development Standards (e.g., Home, Landscape, Hardscape and Architecture requirements). It is the responsibility of the SOA to enforce the PUD’s Development Standards. Variances to the PUD may be requested by the SOA BOD, minor variances can be approved by a city planning staff, but major variances would most likely require City Council approval. The PUD is a legally recorded document.
  • SOA Articles of Incorporation – Establishes the SOA as a non-profit corporation. Defines the objects, purpose and structure of the corporation. A legally recorded document that requires a majority vote (i.e., more than 50%) of all eligible homeowners to change,
  • SOA Bylaws – As with most corporations, bylaws are set forth to establish how the SOA will be run. The SOA bylaws addresses items such as Membership, Meetings, Directors/Officers, Committees and Violations. A majority vote of all eligible members is required to amend the bylaws.
  • SOA Declaration of CC&R’s – Defines the purpose, organization and responsibilities of the SOA. Establishes owner rights, responsibilities and restrictions. Describes the property covered by the CC&R’s, the common areas and amenities, and the protocol for levying of assessments. A legally recorded document that requires a majority vote (i.e., 51%) of all eligible homeowners to amend.
  • SOA Aesthetic Guidelines – The purpose of this document is to “provide guidance to property owners, Builders, Architects and Designers for all development and construction – new buildings, building additions, site work and landscaping – as well as any subsequent changes or alterations to previously approved plans or existing homes in Somersett”. It establishes Architecture, Site Development, Landscaping, and Property Modification requirements along with the design review fees and approval process. The Guidelines are administered and enforced by the Aesthetic Guidelines Committee (AGC). The AGC may propose changes (approved by the BOD) to the Guidelines as long as they are not in conflict with the CC&R’s or PUD.
  • SOA Rules, Regulations and Policies – The purpose of the various SOA Rules, Regulations and Policies is typically to clarify and/or assist in the administration of the CC&Rs and operation of SOA facilities. Changes are usually proposed by the SOA Committees and approved by the BOD.

With regard to changes, the following comments apply:

  • It appears that most homeowner complaints pertain to the Aesthetic Guidelines (e.g., lighting, landscaping, fences) which can be modified (by the AGC) without homeowner vote. That is, as long as they do not conflict with the PUD (the CC&R’s typically do not contain this sort of detail) which many most likely will. However, the PUD can also be changed without homeowner vote. Therefore, it would be sensible for the AGC to conduct some form of homeowner forum(s) to gather input, assess and propose changes, which, if required, can be taken by the BOD to the City of Reno for a PUD variance.
  • The Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and CC&R’s all require a majority vote of all eligible homeowners to modify. This is an ominous process, not easily obtained and would require a concentrated effort not only on the part of the BOD but Homeowner involvement as well. Also, provisions are often duplicated within these documents, so one change could affect all three documents. This would constitute a longer and more difficult process than Aesthetic Guideline and PUD changes. Therefore, formation of a special committee to review these documents for appropriate changes would probably be the way to go.

At the close of the meeting, the BOD president advised that a decision has not yet been made on future meetings or committee formations. In the interim, He encouraged owners to continue to provide their comments via the “Homeowner’s Forum: SOA Governing Documents” post on the SOA Website.

With the exception of the PUD, all the above referenced documents are available on this website under the “References” tab.

A reminder that the Homeowner Informational Meeting on the SOA Governinbg Documents is scheduled for 5:30 PM on Monday, July 9th at TCTC. Sports Court.

Purpose is to discuss the need, process and constraints for revising the SOA Governing Documents (e.g. the PUD, The CC&R’s, Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, Aesthetic Guidelines).

Note that the format for this meeting does not include any time for homeowner comments, discussions or recommendations on specific changes to the documents. This will be accomplished via a separate venue.

At the June 27h BOD Meeting, via a “Legal Update” Attorney Letter dated June 27th, it was revealed that the SOA’s decision to proceed with the Rockery Wall lawsuit was under investigation by the Nevada Real Estate Division’s (NRED) Enforcement Section. This as a result of an Ombudsman Intervention Affidavit filed by a Somersett homeowner. The Affidavit alleges that the SOA BOD violated NRS 116.31088 by authorizing a civil action to proceed without the required number of Association Member votes to ratify such action. Specifically, out of the approximately 3100 Association ballots sent out, 953 ballots were returned, of which 716 were in favor. This represents only 23% of the total number of allocated members, not a majority as required by the statute. However, the Board subsequently voted to proceed based on the returned ballot results only. The NRS Statute, whose violation is in question reads as follows:

“To protect the health, safety and welfare of the members of the association. If a civil action is commenced pursuant to this paragraph without the required vote or agreement, the action must be ratified within 90 days after the commencement of the action by a vote or written agreement of the owners of the units to which at least a majority of votes of the members of the association are allocated. If the association, after making a good faith effort, cannot obtain the required vote or agreement to commence or ratify such a civil action, the association may thereafter seek to dismiss the action without prejudice for that reason only if a vote or written agreement of the owners of the units to which at least a majority of votes of the members of the association are allocated was obtained at the time the approval to commence or ratify the action was sought”.

Following an owner letter to the Board, the alleged violation was placed on the agenda for the May 23rd BOD meeting and addressed by Association Attorney John Samberg in which, per the meeting Minutes, “John Samberg was present and discussed that the Board acted in good faith and in accordance with the four corners of the law while filing this lawsuit. The Nevada statute has various components and requirements. We (the SOA attorney) believes that those requirements were met and the Board was acting in good faith on behalf of the community”. Although the wording of the statute leaves something to be desired, the requirement for a majority vote of all homeowners appears to be quite clear. Since Mr. Samberg did not offer any other legal basis to proceed with the lawsuit, a subsequent appeal to the NRED Ombudsman was initiated via the Intervention Affidavit process.

In retrospect, Mr. Samberg’s opinion that: “…the Board was acting in good faith on behalf of the community…;” is questionable given the following:

  1. The SOA law suit was filed with the District Court on December 29th without any prior notification to Association Members.
  2. Association Members were first notified of the lawsuit on February 23rd, almost 60 days after filing of the lawsuit, and provided with a ballot to either Ratify or Not Ratify.
  3. A Homeowner Information Meeting was held on March 10th to discuss the basis for the lawsuit. A major concern by those present was the 6-year statute of limitations on a Chapter 40 Claim for Damages. The SOA Attorney, without citing any other statutes, felt there was a work-around here, but would not reveal their litigation strategy.
  4. To be eligible for counting, all ballots were to be received by March 28th, which coincidently corresponded to the NRS 116.31088 90-day limit for ratification after commencement of the action (i.e., the lawsuit filing date).
  5. The vote count was not made available to Association Members until mid-April, citing Attorney reasons, which closely corresponds to the date of the “Unanimous Written Consent“ document referenced below.
  6. The BOD via a Unanimous Written Consent document, effective April 14th, approved proceeding with the lawsuit based on the returned ballot results. It should be noted that the Unanimous Written Consent process is normally reserved for emergency and/or time sensitive issues.  This in lieu of discussion and approval at the next regularly scheduled open Board meeting. Also it was not a unanimous consent as Director Roland abstained.

Should one consider the preceding a “Good Faith”effort on the part of the BOD? Of concern is why the BOD waited 60 days after filing of the lawsuit to notify Association Members and distribute ballots. Thus, leaving only 30 days for ratification with no time for any extension to solicit additional ballots should a majority vote not be reached. It should have been obvious to the BOD, based on past history, that a majority vote could not be reached in this time frame. Was the BOD counting on this, knowing that initial ballots are usually in favor, and that many who oppose will just not bother to submit ballots without further prompting? Especially given that at the March 10th Information meeting, a BOD spokesperson, in soliciting ballot submittals, stated that a non-submittal was essentially the same as a “No” vote.

The ratification issue is now in the hands of the NRED’s Enforcement Section, for which the SOA BOD has until July 16th to provide a response to the alleged violation. Will the NRED determine that the SOA BOD made an appropriate “Good Faith” effort and can proceed with the lawsuit, or that they are in violation of Nevada Law and must curtail activities until a majority vote of all allocated owners is accomplished? Only time will tell.

Note: Previous posts on this subject may be accessed via the following links:


Meeting Agenda  –  The revised agenda may be accessed by clicking on the following link.  Page numbers refer to the supplemental BOD Meeting Packet, which is available on the SOA website.

Revised June 27th BOD Meeting Agenda

A recap of some of the more significant items discussed and/or approved follow:

Item 4.f General Manager Report – The complete General Manager Report is available on the SOA Website. This report summarizes Aesthetic Guidelines (AGC) and Community Standards (CSC) Committee activity, The Club at Town Center (TCTC) activities and usage factors, Special Projects/Maintenance updates, and General Manager Activity. The General Manager section included:

Announced hiring of James O”Connnell to fill the open FSE Project Manager position and Jeff Lucas to replace Ron Eckhardt as Maintenance Operations Manager.

A proposal from High Sierra Forestry to oversee the Fire Fuel Reduction Program. Proposal forwarded to the Finance Committee for review.

An update on homeowner complaints about native vegetation fire hazards on adjoining Somersett Country Club property. Country Club response was that they had checked with the Fire Department and discovered no violations, and that “We will continue to be as proactive as we can on the golf course side with the limited maintenance crew we have, but there isn’t much we can do as far as getting out to specific properties”.

Editorial comment: Perhaps the new FSE Project Manager can review the Purchase and Lease Agreement with the Country Club to see if they are in violation of their maintenance responsibilities.

Item 6.a  Legal Update – The SOA Attorney letter addressing all pending litigation may be viewed via the following link  “June 27, 2018 SOA Legal Update. Regarding the Rockery Wall lawsuit, a Mediation session was held between litigants on June 22, 2018. However, the proceedings were deemed confidential, so no details were provided. Additionally, the Association received notice from the Nevada Real Estate Division of an owner complaint that the Association did not comply with NRS 116.31088 in proceeding with the Rockery Wall law suit. The NRED has asked the Association to provide copies of governing documents and those “documents relating to the actual vote to ratify the filing of the lawsuit”. The Association has until July 16, 2018 to respond.

Item 6.b   Website Standard Terms and Conditions  –  No update or approval was provided

Item 6.c  Pool Redesign Sealed Bid – Only one bid was submitted. That from Dennis Banks Construction in the amount of $470,183. This was higher than expected and much discussion ensued. This along with related items 7.a,b,c below were eventually referred to the Finance Committee for review and evaluation

Items 7.a,b,c  Pool Project Related Proposals – Proposals were received from three separate contractors for pool construction support activities. These for1) Construction Surveying, 2) Materials Testing, and 3) Structural Engineering Services. Total for all three came to about $14,000. This is in addition to the $470,183 referenced above. Bottom line is that the Pool Redesign Project with contingencies, and based on current proposals, will amount to approximately $500K. Given that the Club at Town Center’s 2018 total budget for upgrades was $500K and considering amounts already spent, the Pool Project will put the TCTC special projects well over budget.

Item 7.d  Permit Application and Emergency Plan for Canyon 9 Dam – The BOD accepted the House-Moran Consulting proposal in the amount of $8,000 for this work

Item 7.f  Resident Meeting to Discuss Document Changes – A homeowner meeting is scheduled for 5:30 PM on July 9th at TCTC. Purpose is to discuss perceived need for modification of the SOA Governing Documents, the constraints associated therewith, and the process for accomplishing. The meeting will not be open for discussion/comments on specific changes. This will come later if it is decided to proceed with modifications.

Homeowner Comments:

An owner complained about the reduced lap pool hours as being unfair to those who rely on lap pool use for exercise.

An owner presented a complaint to the SOA Board concerning the rude conduct of the BOD President at a homeowner initiated meeting to discuss TCTC Potluck Dinner policy. A copy of the owner complaint, reprinted with permission, is available for viewing via the following link: “SOA BOD President Complaint

Editorial Comment – Although not required by the Homeowner, SU felt it prudent to not disclose the owners name on this venue, hence its removal from the submitted complaint

An owner asked whether the recent Association Member email discussing burglaries and security patrols in Somersett implied that increased security patrols would ensue. The response was that increased patrols are not planned for at this time, only a more judicious look at patrol timing and routes.