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

somersett UnitedThe Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) has issued a “Letter of Intent”, signed by all parties, for a new agreement with the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC). Due diligence by all parties will take place over the next few months before a final agreement is in place. Several homeowner meetings have been scheduled to present the case for the new agreement. The first being held at The Club at Town Center on November 23 with about 40 attendees. Subsequent meetings are scheduled as follows:

 December 4, 2013  –   5:30 PM at The Club at Town Center

January 14, 2014  –  5:30 PM at the Aspen Lodge.

Subsequent 2014 dates to be announced.

 Both the Letter of Intent and the presentation slides used at the November 23 meeting are available on the mysomersett.com website. They may also be accessed via the following links:

Proposed SOA SGCC New Agreement

Letter of Intent

 The basic premise of the new agreement is that the SOA will purchase the SGCC property (approximately 220 acres) including all water rights and distribution system for $2.75 million. The SOA leases it back to the SGCC (50 years with two 20 year renewal options) for a nominal fee ($2200/yr). The SGCC continues to operate it as a private country club (cannot go public) paying all operating and maintenance costs related thereto. If it ceases to operate as a golf course, the SOA takes over the property to do with as they see fit. During the lease term, SOA homeowners will continue to have access to SGCC amenities, which will be pretty much as now except residents can play 4 times a year (at guest rates) instead of the current 2 times a year, also free use of  the “association”  driving range or the member driving range for $10/day. It is estimated that homeowner assessments to pay off a $2.75 million loan will be less than the $15/month going to the SGCC under the current agreement. The new agreement will be subject to “homeowner ratification”.

 Unlike the current agreement, the proposed replacement obviously has its merits in that the SOA will receive some payback for its investment in the SGCC. However, it does raise the following questions:

 1.  What constitutes homeowner ratification?

2.  What will the SGCC do with the $2.75M?

3.  In the event of SGCC failure, what will it cost the SOA to maintain the SGCC property as common space and how would this affect future assessments?

4.  Is a CC&R amendment required for vote on the new agreement?

 All are encouraged to access the above documents, read them carefully, attend the homeowner meetings and submit any questions you may have to the BOD via email at soa@mysomersett.com. Questions and Answers will be posted regularly on the mysomersett website.

 Readers who wish to post their own article (i.e., as opposed to commenting on an existing article) on this subject (pro or con) may do so by emailing it to somersettunited@gmail.com. Please try to limit to a maximum of 400 words.

Advertisements

Comments on: "Proposed SOA SGCC New Agreement" (7)

  1. The NV attorney general has instructed that the existing SGCC/SOA deal be modified. Even if the deal were judged to be legal, it is a rotten deal for SOA members (whether golfers or not). Furthermore, SGCC has not administered the deal in accordance with the agreement. If a group of SOA members plays at SGCC, each SOA member in the group has the round of golf deducted from his/her twice/year allotment. Members of the general public frequently play at SGCC at the same or lower rates as SOA members, and without having to pay the $180/year assessment for the SOA subsidy of SGCC. In return for receiving the subsidy from diverted SOA assessments SGCC discriminates against SOA members. The boards of directors of both SGCC and SOA have proved untrustworthy, and any and all deals involving either board should be rejected for this reason alone – including the proposed CC&R changes currently being voted upon that are clearly intended to make it far easier for the SOA board to subsidize private entities.

    Even if the two boards were to be trusted, the proposed deal is still rotten for both golfing and nongolfing SOA members who are not SGCC members. Assessing SOA members to subsidize a private entity is unacceptable, especially when the entity discriminates against SOA members. The SOA board should exercise its fiduciary responsibility to its members by buying SGCC and opening it to all SOA members equally. members. The proposed deal is another “sweetheart” deal intended to preserve both the investment and exclusive playing rights of the existing SGCC members to the detriment of all other SOA members.

  2. Joe Bower - Sierra Canyon Owner & SOA Member said:

    What about the cessation or continuation of the current diversion of $15.00 each month from each association member’s regular assessment going to SGCC whether or not they play the course, see the course, live by the course, belong to the Club, and maybe don’t want anything to do with it?

    BTW is it true that the dues paid to SGCC by its own members have been reduced thanks to the approximate annual amount of $450,000 “given” to the Club by this diversion?

    Would the Board initiate a special assessment to raise any needed purchase funds?

    Has there been another instance of a COMMON-interest community buying a PRIVATE business and then turning around and leasing it back to that same PRIVATE business? Smells like a fancy subsidy deal.

    Even if there is such an instance, the numbers of years involved in this one are far too many. Present and yet to be born association members should not be obligated to anything that outlasts their lifetimes, especially to a sport that is fading in popularity and more than ever caters to the rich and exclusive-minded.

    COMMON-interest communities were set up to manage COMMONLY owned property and to protect that property. There is nothing in any COMMON-interest literature or state laws governing COMMON-interest communities that addresses a PRIVATE Club with its PRIVATE membership and PRIVATE facilities (golf courses included). That is because COMMON-interest communities are to keep their nose out of such PRIVATE businesses and stick to their own business at hand as stated in our CC&R’s, i.e. “The purpose of the Association shall be to:

    a. Own, maintain, repair and improve all easements and deeded real property for COMMON Area within the Subdivision; including without limitation the funding, operation and maintenance of the following COMMON elements: recreational and community facilities; lakes; parks; paths; sidewalks; trails; open space; fences; Canyon Nine Golf Course; landscaping; gates; gatehouses; signs; entry ways; drainage ways and drainage facilities; private streets and curbs; private security; recreational vehicle storage; snow removal (private streets only) and storage areas; landscaping; fire modification and fuel breaks; residential parking areas; lighting; surface water detention areas; wildlife habitat and buffer mitigation areas; and access roads.” Nothing about a PRIVATE GOLF CLUB AND ITS COURSE in there. Read Article II, Section 1 for yourself. It was written by the master developer of Somerset and he intensionally left out anything about a PRIVATE Golf Club and its course!

    Also in Article II “The Association SHALL have no other purpose than those specified herein and as allowed by the Act (Nevada Revised Statutes) or other applicable law, and SHALL expressly be prohibited from representing the Owners and occupants of Units within the subdivision on issues of land use, planning, municipal annexation, master plan amendments, growth, area development OR SIMILAR MATTERS.”

    We don’t have COMMON association assessment money going to support any of the PRIVATE businesses at The Town Center. Are they next?

    (caps added for emphasis)

  3. Geoffrey Brooks said:

    Well, we already own the Canyon 9, 9 hole public golf course. We are all paying, in our general dues, nearly $13 a month for its purchase and upkeep.

    The SOA is buying the Canyon 9 over 20 years from Somersett Development Co., along with the TCTC. The dedication agreement (from 2006) shows that we are paying SDS $750,00 for the water rights of 25 acre feet per anum, ($30,000/acre foot), and almost another $1,000,000 for the course itself. This represents roughly $2 a month of dues. We are currently paying, and will presumably continue to pay, around $11/month to SGCC to maintain and water it.

    If the SOA acquires the water rights for the CGC and the pumping station infra-structure, to complement the water rights we own, will we able to get a reduction in the maintenance costs for the Canyon 9?

    I realise, as Joe points out that an SOA is not in the Golfing business, but if a golf course is classed as an amenity for all in the community, surely they need to change the CCR’s to reflect this fact and seek to manage and maintain both courses efficiently.

  4. Joe Bower - Sierra Canyon Owner & SOA Member said:

    An amenity for owners in a homeowners association is something that ALL owners can partake of. An amenity is not something like a PRIVATE Golf Club that only the FEW want and can afford membership. PRIVATE golf clubs are by there nature exclusionary. It took government intervention to force memberships that don’t exclude based on race, gender, or religion. At least government has kept hands off on affordability.

    Here are “our” amenities that we hear about all the time, but are never named, depending on whether one owns in a sub-association or not:

    Trail System
    Bocce Ball Courts
    Fishing Pond
    Canyon 9
    Private Town Square commercial entities
    East Park
    2 parks in Sierra Canyon
    The Club a Town Center – outdoor pools & spa, tennis, fitness room, Kids Klub
    The Aspen Lodge – indoor pool/outdoor spa, tennis, fitness room
    The Villages – Pool & Spa, Club House, Playground

    Let’s not breakdown each into its finer points, e.g. kitchens at TCTC and Aspen Lodge; men’s and ladies changing rooms at TCTC and Aspen Lodge; TV’s at TCTC and Aspen Lodge; bar-b-ques in parks, etc. Those are givens just like seats on an airplane.

    We don’t have amenities such as:

    Landing strip for private planes
    Stable for horses & riding ring
    Baseball fields
    Soccer field
    Indoor swimming facility for all
    Teenage Club House
    24-hour security patrols
    Community TV station
    Association provided Internet & Cable TV to all homes
    Tree house for children
    Health Care Center
    Barbershop
    Beauty Salon
    Gasoline Station
    Multi-use indoor amphitheater with theater style seating
    Food Market
    Daily or weekly community newspaper
    Ballet and judo studios
    Band rehearsal studio

    There is a long way to go on amenities along with their costs.

    • Geoffrey Brooks said:

      I have heard comments from unit owners, who believe that a community owned SGCC as a SOA owned amenity, that “resident” unit owners can play as often as they like at the “resident cost”. If they are buying it, they should, if they wish, be able to play it as often as time permits.

      This ties in other comments I have heard that it sounds “crazy” to have the unit owners buy the SGCC with our money and then lease back the exclusive rights to a private members club for a nomimal fee.

      Once the SOA owns a golf course (another one), they should operate it to benefit all the residents.

      (assuming both the unit owners and the SGCC vote approval of this purchase agreement to replace the “lease” agreement)

  5. thank god i didn’t move up there. man up and make a simple agreement…..or enjoy eternity arguing in court and amongst yourselves. this squabble has suppressed home price there…solve it and all win. the course has to go public, be sold or made available to all residents or go brown. it will never make it as a country club. face the music.

  6. geof giles said:

    If you have an HOA you open up yourself to losing your home for non-payment of dues. There are a group of out-of-state “investors” buying these properties up, wholesale. One person lost a free and clear home worth $4-500,000 at a $20,000 foreclosure sale, but that was not in summerset. Think very hard about what your HOA provides versus what it can cost you. Geof Giles

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: