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

SGCC Lease Agreement Modification

At the Homeowner Information Presentation held Tuesday May 28 at the Town Center, the SOA Board of Directors (Fakonas, Kirby, Lee) presented a concept whereby the current Country Club (SGCC) Lease & Management Agreement would be scrapped and replaced by a long term agreement that would result in SOA ownership of 5.5 acres of SGCC land.  The land in question being the site of the existing Parking Lot, Pro Shop, Sunsett Grille, Golf Cart Garage , Bocce Ball Courts and the yet to be constructed hard surface Sport Court and 9 Hole Putting Course .  This in exchange for $15/month/unit (up to a maximum of 3000 units) of homeowner assessments being tendered to the SGCC for an 8.5 year period.  After which the land in question would be deeded over to the SOA, representing a price tag of $4.0 – 4.5 million.

The stated benefit being that the SOA would then own the Bocce Ball Courts, Putting Course and Sports Court that were constructed with SOA funds, which is not the case under the current agreement, wherein the SGCC would retain ownership of these facilities.  Also, the SOA would have additional property on which to construct future amenities, an indoor year around swimming pool was mentioned as a possibility.

The BOD emphasized that these were preliminary discussions; no agreements have been reached, and acknowledged there are many details yet to be addressed.  Three of which are 1) restrictions regarding sale of the club to protect SOA interests, 2) negotiations with the Somersett Development Company (SDC) for modification of the current SGCC land deed wherein if the SGCC fails to operate as a golf course for 24 months, all water rights and ownership of SGCC land revert back to the SDC, and 3) what terms of the existing agreement may or may not be retained it its replacement.

Many homeowners were in attendance and numerous concerns, comments and questions were raised during the open discussion period, which are too numerous to repeat here.  Suffice it to say that most questioned the wisdom of the presented long term concept. The session was recorded and an audio transcript will be made available on the SOA website.  The SOA Board has solicited input from all homeowners who wish to contribute their opinions and/or ideas.  You may do so by writing a letter to the Board or sending an email to soa@mysomersett.com.

Readers are also encouraged to share your comments with others on this Blog site.

Advertisements

Comments on: "Information Presentation Recap." (3)

  1. Somersett United said:

    The following captures some of the homeowner comments (paraphrased) expressed during the open discussion phase.

    1. A financial analysis of the current lease agreement based on resident use of SGCC amenities was summarized, which revealed an unacceptable cost to usage ratio. Suggested the agreement was a financial disaster for the SOA and should be terminated.

    2. Assessing Sierra Canyon residents for new amenities they already enjoy within their own association (e.g., the mentioned indoor swimming pool) would not be acceptable, and some exemptions would be in order.

    3. An opinion that the $15/mo of homeowner assessments is a small price to pay to negate the following, 1) detrimental impact on property values should the SGCC go “Brown”, 2) SGCC going public, which would result in undesirable elements coming into the community, and 3) loosing the green open space beauty of the community.

    4. Questioned how much buildable land would actually be available given parking lot requirements and the Petroleum Pipeline easement running through the property. Would the parking lot also have to accommodate SGCC parking (Note: The SGCC permanent clubhouse would be located adjacent to the 5.5 acre parcel).

    5. Given the wind conditions associated with the 5.5 acre parcel location, it would not be a desirable venue for outdoor amenities.

    6. Nevada law states that if the SOA acquires additional property not originally part of the common area, they have to obtain approval of homeowners whose property lies within 500 feet of any proposed structure to be built on the acquired property.

    7. A signed agreement with the SDC regarding waiver of the Quitclaim reverter clause should be acquired before proceeding with any serious negotiations.

    8. Given that the SGCC is looking at building a permanent clubhouse, will the “Event Trigger” clause of the existing agreement be maintained (under this clause the SOA BOD can participate in its design, albeit for the benefit of homeowners, and establish additional assessment fees). Suggested it not be included in any new agreement.

    9. An assessment of the SGCC’s financial stability is an important factor in entering into a long term agreement. Given that the SGCC had a net operating income loss of $628,000 in 2011, what were their 2012 financials given the ~$500,000 influx of cash from assessments and amenity access fees paid by homeowners. Pat Gaskill (SGCC Board President) responded with a summary of SGCC’s 2012 financials, which represented a significant improvement over prior years (i.e., no significant net income loss).

    10. Whatever the SOA and SGCC BOD’s agree upon for a long term agreement, it should be subject to homeowner ratification via majority vote.

    11. An opinion that if the SGCC closed shop, the land would not go permanently “Brown”, as it would most likely then be developed as residential area.

    • Ex Country Club Member said:

      Regarding Item 3. 2) I realize many country club members (and others) feel this way. I have been a member of two private country clubs in the past, but have spent most of my adult life on public courses. I can honestly say that public golf course players are no more undesirable than private club players. Unfortunately too many private club members adopt an “elitist” attitude toward others. I agree wholeheartedly with item 10.

  2. Geoffrey Brooks said:

    Item 3.2) As a former citizen of a country where elitist views (and private clubs) are a way of life…I feel that if one wants to restrict access to something, then you should pay for it yourself.

    At least over in the UK, the ordinary citizens do not have to pay for a private clubs. The one thing I love about the US is the lack of class and elitist views, everyone is equal.

    Maintaining a private golf club in face of the adverse economic winds makes no sense (equity members pay nearly twice as much as the new mainly non-resident members).

    I have been told about some Ex Country Club equity members who have dropped out for at least year, who are planning to rejoin at the lower monthly rate.

    At least the Canyon 9 is already homeowner owned and open to the public, so it can never go brown. Time to take the SGCC public.

    Item 11) The “bowning issue” is always out of context (a red herring). In the event of a “going-out of business event”, it would be developed. The new construction at D’Andrea has been maintaining and actually increasing in value, even though the Golf Course is now closed and some of it will be developed as new housing.

    As for Northgate, now a City park, it has reverted to original native Mount Peavine vegetation, it looks good as you drive in to our beautiful community. As far as I can tell, the Somersett housing which abuts the old course, has not lost anymore value than the housing in the custom lots area of Champion Hills and Eagle Chase – also repleat with native Peavine vegetation! It is to some extent a shame, that some of Northgate was not developed, the club house and the maintenance sheds are still standing forlornly, completely out of place. Native vegetation instead of housing in easily buildable areas is a waste of an opportunity for controlled high quality growth within Reno. Some of the land should preserved as an open city park.

    Maybe an indoor municipal pool should be built where the club house is , along with a baseball diamond and maybe a soccer field (if not too windy). Amenties for all Reno residents – close to Somersett!

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: