The April 12 SOA Board of Directors meeting was held with very little attendance on the part of homeowners. Comments on some of the more important agenda items follow. For complete meeting minutes please visit the SOA website at www.mysomersett.com.
SOA Board Turnover.
Expansion of the Board to five members and election of an all Homeowner Board in November of this year was approved. This will end Developer control of the SOA Board, an event that SU has long lobbied for, as it will end any conflicts between what is in the “best interests of the Developer” versus “what is in the best interests of the Homeowners”.
Developer Subsidy Repayment Agreement
Per this agreement, the SOA Board agreed to reimburse the Somersett Development Company $365,907 for prior subsidized services. Validity of this agreement has been challenged by a homeowner and is the subject of the previous Blog article.
Country Club Lease Agreement
A homeowner had challenged the validity of the Country Club Lease Agreement on the grounds it violated certain provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes regarding common-interest communities. As expected the “neutral” SOA attorney’s opinion was that these were without merit. What was not expected was the Board president’s (Blake Smith) criticism for wasting the Boards time and attorney fees for alleged violations that had been previously ruled upon, which was false. The alleged violations were first raised in a letter to the Board in February, responded to by the SOA Attorney in March and placed as an agenda item on the April Board meeting. It is unfortunate that the Board president feels free to mis-state the facts and to direct attacks against those who may disagree with Board decisions. SU also considers the SOA Attorney opinions as challengeable.
Reference: Legal Opinion SGCC Agreement Validity
Complaint for Damages Against Summit Engineering and Moana Nursery
The Board advised that the settlement agreement for damages against Summit Engineering (i.e., the Somersett entrance rock wall issue) was close to resolution, but was not the case for Moana Nursery (mainline irrigation issue). In the event settlement agreements are not reached in the near future, the Board approved resolutions for the filing of damages against both. Such filing would require homeowner approval via vote. A homeowner raised the question as to whether these actions would release Somersett Development Company, as prime contractor, of any damage liability on their own, the answer was no. A question here is: Should the Developer be paying the legal fees for this litigation instead of the SOA? SU believes that this should be a Developer expense. Also, it was revealed that 27% of any recovered damages would be paid to the Developer as credit against the Subsidy Repayment Agreement discussed above.
Land Purchase Adjacent to TCTC
The Board (Ray Lee) extolled the strategic importance to the SOA for purchase of this land. However, purchase of the land was placed on hold for unclear reasons, even though it is again on the market. Blake Smith blamed a recent offer (subsequently withdrawn) on this property by a Somersett resident as “muddying the waters” and causing the bank to consider placing land purchase on a 90 day hold. SU considers this to be some sort of smoke screen as the SOA Board had sufficient time to purchase the property after resident withdrawal of their offer. One might ask the question, if the property is of such strategic value to the SOA, why was it not included in the original common area? Maybe because the Developer expected to sell it to a retail concern at a nice profit?