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

October 22 BOD Meeting

Somersett Town Center

Somersett Town Center

The Somersett Owners Association Board of Directors (BOD) will be holding their open Board meeting on Tuesday, October 22nd at 5:30 PM in the Loft.  For those interested in attending, the meeting agenda may be accessed via the following link:  October 22 BOD Meeting Agenda

Of particular interest are the following Agenda items – SU comments follow:

Item 6 a)  “Moana Ch. 40 Status” – Ongoing litigation against Moana Nursery regarding main line irrigation system construction defects.

Item 6 b) “Review and Discussion of SGCC Stipulation with NRED” – Possibly an update on negotiations with the SGCC regarding the new agreement to be voted on by homeowners.  At the September BOD meeting, the BOD President stated he hoped to have a finalized agreement in place for the October BOD meeting.

Item 7 d) “Review and Approval of 2014 budget including special projects” – Always of interest.  Budget summary may be accessed via the following link:  2014 Budget Presentation

Item 7 e) “Review and Approval of the updated 2014 Reserve Studies for each cost center” – Should include an update on litigation against the Developer for underfunding of Reserves, the most blatant attributed to the TCTC.  See Item 7 f) below.

Item 7 f) “Review and Approval of the transfer of $200,000 to reserves for TCTC – This represents special project money originally budgeted for purchase of land adjacent to the TCTC.

Item 7 l) “Discussion of alleged violations of NRS 116 regarding the Country Club Lease Agreement” – Most likely pertains to a homeowner letter to the BOD alleging it is their fiduciary responsibility to terminate the existing Lease Agreement until replaced and ratified by homeowner vote.  Homeowner letter was previously posted on this website and may be accessed via the following link:  SGCC Lease Agreement Termination Letter.

Regarding Item 7 l), the BOD president has stated that a YES vote on a new agreement will supersede the existing Lease Agreement, whereas a NO vote will not terminate it. Many do not see the logic in this approach. Especially being that the new agreement is supposed to be more beneficial than the existing one, one which the Nevada Attorney General’s office has determined to be illegal. The referenced letter identifies that per Nevada law the BOD has the authority to terminate the current agreement (without recourse) if so desired.

Homeowners are encouraged to attend and provide any comments you may have on agenda topics or other issues of concern. Given the controversy surrounding the SGCC Lease Agreement and its significant financial impact on the SOA, homeowner feedback to the BOD is especially important. If unable to attend you may submit comments to the BOD via email at:  soa@mysomersett.com.

Website comments are also encouraged.

Advertisements

Comments on: "October 22 BOD Meeting" (3)

  1. Norm Brazelton said:

    Please stop the huge use of acronyms and spell out the full name. for your homeowners who are not spending full time like you are with these organizations.

    • Norm – Your comment is well taken, will be more vigilant in this regard in the future. For your info, NRED is the Nevada Real Estate Division, SGCC is the Somersett Golf & Country Club, TCTC is The Club at Town Center and NRS is Nevada Revised Statutes.

  2. As usual your postings are less than accurate and misleading.

    Regarding 7I), first of all Attorney Generals (or prosecutors) don’t “determine” or decide the legality of agreements. Judges and Juries “determine” or decide those matters. Also, if she had decided that possibly a portion of it was illegal (in the attorney generals opinion), the rest would remain in effect (like all contracts) if it was determined by a judge to be so, but apparently she hasn’t “determined” that to be the case or she would have brought prosecution against it (or a portion of it), or one or both of the entities that crafted it and agreed to it, none of which has happened. Her decision was to let the SOA and SGCC work out another agreement and let the homeowners vote on it, which would supersede the existing agreement (as stated above). And “many do not see the logic in this approach” is an overstatement. A “few” may not see the logic in this approach but “many” is not the case, as is always the case on postings on SU (over exaggeration and misleading) .

    Furthermore, there is only “controversy” in the minds of a few (very few) homeowners who try to mislead others into thinking that there is some significant movement against the agreement or the SGCC (Somersett Golf and Country Club). 6-10 homeowners does not constitute controversy in a community of thousands.

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: