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

Posted By Dan Kanyr

“….As protection against SGCC bankruptcy, a provision was included in the SGCC Lease Agreement allowing the SOA to purchase SGCC (land, facilities, amenities, etc.) for $1 prior to bankruptcy.”A quote from the  Somersett Board of Directors (BOD) summary communication to SOA homeowners on the lease agreement signed with SGCC.

Page 8, Section IV-8 SGCC Lease Agreement states:  “In the event SGCC intends to file for BANKRUPTCY under any chapter, SOA shall have the first right of refusal to prior to SGCC filing for BANKRUPTCY to purchase the SUBJECT PROPERTY for $1.  If SOA elects to purchase SUBJECT PROPERTY there shall be no additional requirement for SOA to reimburse any SGCC member for any reason, including initiation payments…”

The preceding may sound good, but it is not what it seems.  In reality it offers nothing of value to the Somersett homeowner.  In this Article, I will review:  1) the validity of the communication; 2) the legality of the $1 option; 3) the value of the option; 4) who really benefits from this clause; and 5) property values.

1)      The BOD Communication 

The BOD wants homeowners to believe their interests are protected by the $1 option. This is far from the truth. The option offers no security to SOA. The Quitclaim Deed  transferring  the golf course real property to SGCC only allows for use as an  18 hole championship golf course.  Otherwise, the title to the real property and all water rights reverts to Blake Smith’s Somersett Development Company (SDC).

I asked the BOD where is the “security”?  I got two answers. 1) SOA could use the option to block an undesirable buyer. and 2) to paraphrase Blake Smith : if you don’t think it is any value don’t exercise the option. I can always take back the land and sell it to developers and sell the water rights.

The SOA BOD grossly misrepresented the $1 option when they communicated with members. The communication leaves the impression SOA is secured by the SGCC real estate.  In fact, SOA would only get the right to operate an 18 hole championship golf course that by that time had gone bust twice.

2)      Legality of the $1 Option

SGCC is owned by its equity members who each signed contracts defining their interests and how they can be sold, transferred, etc.  It is doubtful the SGCC has the legal authority to wipe out each equity member’s share.  Did SOA check the legality of this clause?

3)      The Value of the Option

When SDC negotiated early turnover of the SGCC to the Equity members in August 2010, SDC agreed to underwrite $450,000 of SGCC operating deficits for 2010, $200,000 in 2011 and nothing beyond, as well as transferring $1,000,000 in the escrow account for the clubhouse. These monies have proven to be insufficient to offset SGCC’s actual operating deficits, as it has been reported that the SGCC’s  operating deficit for 2011 was ~$685,000.  So the option for the SOA to buy the club  is not for $1, but rather a potential negative $685,000/year as it would subject the Somersett homeowners to fund all SGCC operating deficits.  How would this be accommodated?  Only through increased homeowner assessments.

4)      Who benefits from this clause?

The $1 option benefits only SDC and  SGCC. It offers more harm than good to SOA members. The clause misleads homeowners into thinking they have real security.  Consider the two alternatives from the SOA’s viewpoint.

Bankruptcy: The court would appoint a trustee to either re-organize SGCC or liquidate the SGCC assets. SGCC land would revert to SDC under the  Quitclaim Deed. Vendors and others owed money by SGCC would be re-paid at some % of their claim.  SDC could then contract with a golf management company to operate a public course, sell SGCC as a golf course, sell the land to developers (with a zoning change), or deed the land to the city as a public area, etc.

Sale to SOA prior to Bankruptcy: The clause leaves open the door for SGCC members to seek an enhanced subsidy agreement from SOA or an outright sale where equity members are paid for some or all their interests.  SOA finances would be stretched by SGCC’s substantial negative cash flow.  The option clearly helps SGCC equity members, not SOA.  Also SDC has a financial interest in sustaining the SGCC.   SGCC pays the taxes and maintenance on the course which otherwise be SDC’s responsibility.  SDC’s financial interest in the land costs it nothing. In this market SDC is unlikely to find a buyer for the land except at the most distressed prices so SDC is not in a hurry to get the course back.

5)      Property Values:

Much has been said about the drop in property values if the golf course closed. This was prominent in the D’Andrea discussions.  Prior to the real estate collapse, golf course lots commanded significant premiums. Even in this down market a golf course lot is a positive.  What if SOA acquired SGCC as an amenity for its members?  In my opinion, property values in Somersett would likely plummet. Why?  Potential Somersett home buyers would be limited to people who wanted to join a country club. Home buyers would be required to pay for an SGCC membership whether they wanted it or not.  They could buy in other communities without the cost. If SGCC membership were so desirable, SGCC would not be groveling for new members at ever lower prices.

In conclusion, the $1 option is a bad deal for SOA.

QuitClaim Deed


Advertisements

Comments on: "SOA Option to Buy SGCC for $1 Prior to Bankruptcy" (11)

  1. Charnelle Wright said:

    This analysis is well-done and very thorough. Thank you Mr. Kanyr for your excellent study of the actual issue. You spelled out the total implication of this agreement which is a bad deal for the entire community.

  2. What is “SGCC”?

  3. The country club members are acting like victims.

    “… few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims.” Thomas Sowell

    But they’re really parasites.

  4. There appear to be well over 2,000 residents who are not members of the private facility called the Somerset Golf Course. If you don’t like what the SOA did by giving funds to the 174 members then chip in $50 a family and hire an attorney and fight for a fair deal for the resident non-members.

  5. I do not see how I cannot play on a course where $6M of partly my funds could go the the course. Futhermore, it is my understanding that Toll still owes something like millions to the HOA. Does anyone know if that is true?

  6. Barry Lazow said:

    Another comment regarding the “5) Property values” section. I was speaking to a friend of mine this weekend who is a well known Real Estate Agent in Reno. We were speaking about D’Andrea specifically. He told me he had a sale in escrow at $350k when the announcement was made that the residents decided to not help the community golf course with and “additional” (not existing) $25/month. He told me that the buyer backed out of the deal that day and the home sold at a later date for $300k ($50,000 less). Is that what you want to happen to your beautiful community and your property values?

    • Ex Country Club Member said:

      Barry,

      In a previous blog comment I believe you stated that the club is now profitable with little or no chance that homeowners will have to subsidize the Club. If this is true then why the rhetoric about property values? You and others continue to throw out the scare tactic about the club going “brown”, while never admitting publically (i.e., either by the SOA or SGCC Boards) that this was in anyway a basis for the Lease Agreement. If indeed the Club is solvent without homeowner subsidies, then why all the consternation on the part of the Club members? Perhaps some truthfulness in order here.

      Also, the D’Andrea residents got to vote on whether or not to subsidize the Country Club, what a novel idea!

  7. Barry Lazow said:

    obviously the D’Andrea residents made a bad vote just like you would have. And they got to vote because it was an additional fee they would have to incur.

    The rhetoric about property values was just a clarification of the web site’s spew by Dan Kanyr about all the reasons the agreement didn’t make sense, one of them being the option to buy the club for $1 if it were heading towards Bankruptcy. If someone is going to put information out regarding the deal it ought to accurate.

    It’s still unbelievable to me that a few people in this community would spend so much energy over $15 that they were already paying to add more amenities to the community and keep the center piece of it vibrant and beautiful.

    Maybe you should move up to Northgate where there’s no HOA dues going to a golf course?

  8. Barry Lazow said:

    BTWl, I forgot to point out that you could probably get a great deal on a home up there too. The view might not be too great, but think of all the money you’ll save in homeowners dues…..

  9. I had read the original owner gave the country club to the current group with a million dollars cash for operating expenses, because it saw what a losre it was. 15.month is propoganda…..the cost to operate a country club with full staff and facilities is enormous. once they get 15 (which already is really 30-40 per my due dilgence on stopping my short sale), the door is open for 100 or 200

    if the property owners pony up…give them transferable rounds of golf as compensation…….oops, my bad, then it will be a fully crowded mess that will take even more staff to maintain and lose any ‘country club atmosphere’ it so covets

    somerset GC is competing with washoe (and washoe runs a defecit)…it will never be a lakeridge

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: