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

For SU readers who may not have seen it, the following letter from Board President Tony Fakonas has been reprinted from the SOA website.

From the SOA President:

On May 28, Board members Danielle Kirby, Ray Lee, and I held an information session open to all SOA members to discuss the current status of the SOA’s discussions with the SGCC to replace the existing amenity access agreement.  At that time, we told you that no agreement has been reached.  However, we were starting to see elements that we believed would likely be in any final agreement, and we wanted to share those ideas and gather feedback from SOA members.  Overall, the feedback we have received from that meeting was quite positive.  Since then, several events have occurred that we thought warranted an update.  (Read More)

Regarding the content of Mr. Fakonas’s memo, the following comments are offered:

  1. SU has taken the position that the current Lease Agreement should be terminated until a new agreement is negotiated and voted on. In this regard, SU takes exception to Mr. Fakonas’s statement that “to invalidate the agreement would most likely lead to expensive and protracted litigation”. The SU exception is based on Nevada Law NRS 116.3105.1, which states, “Within 2 years after the executive board elected by the units owners pursuant to NRS 116.3104 takes office, the association may terminate without penalty, upon not less than 90 days notice to the other party, any of the following if it was entered into before that executive board was elected: (a) Any management, maintenance, operations or employment contract, or lease of recreational or parking areas or facilities”. Terminating the agreement until vote could save the association $36K/month in assessments going to the SGCC, which in the event of a no vote represent monies lost with a low probability of recovery.
  2. SU also takes exception to the negotiating committee being comprised of only BOD members Mr. Fakonas and Ms. Kirby.  To eliminate any concerns about their objectivity, SU contends that the negotiating committee should also include non-BOD member homeowners with diverse qualifications. A good example is the direct homeowner involvement with the “Lodge Expansion” project in Sierra Canyon.
  3. Mr. Fakonas should have summarized the proposed elements of the new agreement in his update, as it is believed that he is well down the road in this regard. SU suspects that the new agreement will mirror that presented at the May 28 Information Presentation Meeting.  That is, a long term 8.5 year agreement in exchange for approximately 5.5 acres of CC land wherein the existing parking lot, temporary buildings, pipeline easement and Bocce Ball courts are located.
  4. Mr. Fakonas also states “Overall, the feedback we have received from that meeting was quite positive”. This is not evident from the video transcript of the Meeting.  However one can draw their own conclusions by viewing it online at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oybhuYfhOU&feature=youtu.be
  5. The BOD continues to address the agreement in the terms of improving benefits to the SOA, which on a standalone basis does not appear to be worth the investment.  Whereas, the issue of the Country Club’s financial instability as an attendant circumstance has not been openly disclosed in association documents, as it should be.
Advertisements

Comments on: "SOA Update on Discussions with the SGCC" (13)

  1. Barry Lazow said:

    You’re unbelievable….
    You make it sound like “SU” is some large contingency of people, when in fact it’s a very small group of people dead set on preventing and obstructing the SGCC’s success in any way or form.

    Again, you’re contention that the video transcript depicting a few disgruntled SU blowhards represents in any way a large contingency of people is misleading and baseless. Why would you dispute Mr. Farkonas’s statements regarding the feedback the board has been receiving without any evidence that is the case.

    Again, the Country Cub’s financial “stability” is really none of your business and has no bearing on the fact that the SOA is in need of additional land to add meeting space, new amenities for the community (whether you and your band of few like them or not) and general expansion of SOA facilities. You and your band of few would be against any deal between the SOA and the SGCC if you perceived that it might benefit the SGCC in any way, whether it made complete sense for the SOA or not.

    And last but not least, any agreement reached between the SOA and
    SGCC will be voted on by the community. Your efforts to undermine ANY agreement between the SOA and SGCC is a waste of time. We will let the community as a whole decide whether the new agreement is good for “everyone” since it will add to the attractiveness of Somersett, add value to all of our homes and YES add new amenities for the community whether I use them, you use them, or your cohorts use them.

    Oh and BTW, the agreement is not going to be terminated until a new agreement is in place. Even if “SU” suggests it. REALLY?

    • Mikey Mack said:

      Baghdad Barry, I really can’t understand why the SGCC hasn’t put some sort of gag order on you. It is going to cost them a chunk of change to have some PR firm try to spin your comments in some positive light when the Lease Agreement comes up for a vote by the SOA membership. “…the Country Cub’s financial “stability” is really none of your business …” will come back to bite you.

      Can we just cut the crap that the Lease Agreement is not really about providing amenities to the Somersett community and really a way to fund SGCC? If you can’t go there, you are lost.

      The road ahead is tough for SGCC. Sierra Canyon will vote 70% against you. I think the developer blocks will vote against you. The general membership might support you 60%. Run your numbers, then reconsider your public persona.

      • Ex-Country Club Member said:

        Amen Mike – Barry just can’t seem to get past his paranoia that a small group of people are out to “get” the Country Club. As I read the SU editorials, they are simply advocating homeowner approval for any agreement (mutually beneficial) that provides funding to the SGCC via homeowner assessments, which is not an unreasonable position. Apparently the Nevada Attorney General’s office also supports this position, hence the re-negotiated agreement and subsequent vote, which we can then all live by.

  2. i cancelled a short sale in 2010, during my due diligence i discovered the golf course was a money loser and might not make it and would be a headache for all residents. gold move on my part. why do i get all these promos to play your course? $45 on living social $175/month unlimited golf all disguised as ‘temporary/introductory memberships’. go public or give ALL the residents some golf. i find humor in a country club that is really a public, subsidized golf course.

    • It is outrageous that outsiders can get a $45 rate or unlimited golf deals when residents are subsidizing the club and are limited.

  3. Green Green Grass of Home said:

    Hi Bob

    I think cancelling a “short sale” in troubled Somersett because of the “golfing woes”was a big mistake on your part as Somersett is a part of the “best of Reno”. A great place to live!

    Somersett Residents who live on the “closed” Northgate Golf Course, now a city park, have seen their home values improve. If you think about it for 1 minute, the million $ estate homes which have been built and are being built are NOT on the golf course, but nestled in the beautiful natural desert Peavine hillside shrubbery. The residents of Northgate now enjoy similar beautiful natural desertscape views. They are very happy that a privately owned golf course run for the exclusive benefit few Reno residents has gone and been replaced by open space.

    The Somersett HOA Board President – Tony Fakonas – has said that any future subsidy of the Championship Golf Course by all the residents will ensure that those open spaces will always be green, park-like, whatever happens to the private (public?) Club.

    Desirability and enhanced homevalues are Somersett’s future, possibly even higher if the Golf Course becomes open parkland, just like Northgte’s residents!

    Greeen Green Grass of Home

    • Bob Comment Reply said:

      Bob makes a good point about the “Private” status of the Somersett Golf Course. Since early developer turnover to the equity owners in 2010, equity membership has decreased from approximately 220 to 130 at the end of 2012 (not sure what the current status is since our Board president has chosen not to reveal this). Hence the clubs reliance on homeowner assessment subsidies and public play. They now have more “preview members” than equity members. The living social promo Bob refers to is for four people at a $45 rate. These “member for a day promos” have always been in play in one form or another, which sort of nullifies the so-called “benefit” of twice a year play at guest rates ($55 for 2013) afforded to Somersett homeowners under the “Lease Agreement”. Also interesting to note that equity member dues decreased following the Lease Agreement with the SOA, perhaps to stem the flow of equity member resignations?

    • Bruce Watkins said:

      Sorry, but cannot agree with your contention that home values went up as a direct response to the golf course closure. [And, no…it is not a ‘park-like’ setting which has replaced the course.] Home values have gone up all over the country, due to other factors.

  4. Geoffrey Brooks said:

    Picking up on Bob’s & the above SU comments about the ever diminishing costs to play the Chamionship Golf Course. It seems that the best deals are for non-residents, even though we pay $15 a month to have social access and 2 “introductory/guest” rounds a year.

    I was at the April meeting, where the framework of a possible new agreement was outlined by Tony Fakonas, Danielle Kirby and Ray Lee. The question came up as to how the SGCC was doing finacially and Pat Gaskill said that they made a profit of about $30,000, but were in a negative cash position ($200K, if I recall correctly) due to the monies invested for rennovating and upgrading the Sunsett Grille (really a member amenity), adding a new public driving range (practically unused), 2 bocce Ball courts (instead of three) and a fishing pond (unused as far as I can see from my viewpoint).

    This brief financial report did not include the fact that they recieved about $435K in homeowner monies – if this is substracted from the equation, they would have lost $400K in 2012. What I dont understand is they claim they dont need HOA money…and they have reduced the dues of the 129 equity members, apparently using HOA monies!

    In the future, lets spend our money on amenties which Somersett needs, and we can own.

    Geoffrey Brooks

    • I share your outrage at the limit and $55 rate for residents. I just sent in 4 amenity requests; I suggest everyone flood the BOD with needed amenity requests. The denial of them will only make the BOD’s position more untenable.

  5. Geoffrey Brooks said:

    In addition to my comments above, I re-read the blog comments (above) from Barry Lazow.

    “Again, you’re contention that the video transcript depicting a few disgruntled SU blowhards represents in any way a large contingency of people is misleading and baseless. Why would you dispute Mr. Farkonas’s statements regarding the feedback the board has been receiving without any evidence that is the case.”

    I also re-watched the video. Anyone who believes that there were only a few homeowners opposed to the “then proposed deal” should watch again and fact check. The proposition advanced at the May meeting by Fakonas, Kirby and Lee (sorry about dating error in my previous post) was that we acquire a parking lot, currently owned by the SGCC (with over 300 members they need at least 200 parking spaces -if the course is busy) for what seemed to be $4,000,000.

    The lot is at best worth $300K due to the easements and commitments to support the golfers.
    The other main points were that we would lease a new racketball court (or buy) and a new 9 hole putting green (due to the lack of use of the driving range, I feel we are over-golfed

    There were hardly any comments made in favor.

    There was doubt that Blake Smith, the former owner of the SGCC and the Championship Golf Course would permit changes in the agreements “gifting” Somersett Country Club Inc on 06/06/2012 for $3,982,535. This was the price paid by Somersett Country Club LLC to Somersett Development Company Inc on 10/15/2010 and this includes all of the Championship Golf Course. The actual details are quite complex as there are two subsequent correction deeds, one dated December 30, 2011 and the second dated February 1st 2012. These correction agreements only give the SGCC INC a 99 year lease for the Golf Course and Water rights. The lease is only valid as long as the CGC is operated as a Golf Course. If it ceases to be used as a Golf Course, it reverts to Somersett Country Club LLC which was in the process of being wound up with its rights owned by the Somersett Development Company Ltd and Smith Realty Finance, a NV corp dba SR Inc.

    Until we know the tangibles of any new “deal”, now complicated by the AG’s office intervention, which we we can vote on it is difficult to know what to say…

    Going back to Barry Lazow’s post again..

    Again, the Country Cub’s financial “stability” is really none of your business and has no bearing on the fact that the SOA is in need of additional land to add meeting space, new amenities for the community (whether you and your band of few like them or not) and general expansion of SOA facilities. You and your band of few would be against any deal between the SOA and the SGCC if you perceived that it might benefit the SGCC in any way, whether it made complete sense for the SOA or not.”

    However, as a resident owner (and social member of the SGCC) I do believe that the clubs financial “stability” is my concern, as the monies from the HOA for the lease agreement has made it “profitable”. I certainly dont wish to see it fail. The best outcome would be if it went public, and that it was owned, like the Canyon 9 by the homeowners.

    As far as building new amenties for non-golfing residents, the SGCC “land” is not the only option. At a City Meeting last week, the Parks a recreation department admitted they do not have the resources to carry out their “mission” and there was considerable discussion about turing back “city parks” in the various HOA’s around Reno. Hence we will get both the East and West Parks back. The West Park, as yet undeveloped, would make a good site for a Racketball court, and our own Bocce Ball Courts.

  6. received a Halloween promo from the ‘country club’ today in my email. I bought a short sale in newlands in 2010 and golf your course when I feel like it. thanks for subsidizing my golf. glad I cancelled the sale up there. you guys are generous!

    • Somersett Golfer said:

      Bob – You’re welcome! Certainly with all the “promos” the Country Club has been offering to the general public, it negates the so-called “community” golfing benefits we Somersett residents get for our $15/mo assessments. Perhaps the new subsidy agreement our BOD president is working on will rectify the situation.

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: