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

Posted by Geoffrey Brooks  –  Somersett Association Member

Presentations were made by the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) last year, using a signed Letter of Intent (LOI) as the “model” for a new agreement between the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC) and the SOA. The proposed new agreement involves purchase of SGCC land along with some SGCC access amenities.  Homeowner questions were solicited on the LOI, most of which have been posted and answered on the MySomerset  web site.

We were told by the BOD that the final “legal” document would be ready to VOTE on BY APRIL, with two months to get the vote done and the agreement approved by June 16th – this was the deadline set by the Nevada Attorney General’s office in their stipulation (i.e., “Agreement to Stay Investigation” on the legality of the current SGCC Lease Agreement).

I have discussed the LOI with my attorney, who tells me that he could have it transposed into an executable legal document in “less the two weeks”. I cannot understand why this has taken so long….

Maybe, one of the parties has balked at the agreement???

Before we can vote on the “BUY a Golf Course deal” – we need to see what changes need to be made to the CCR’s regarding the status of the Country Club within the SOA – IT IS NOT in the PUD and excluded in our CCR’s.

Article VII Section 6 “No Right to Use” of the SOA CC&R’s states:

“Neither membership in the Association nor ownership or occupancy of a unit shall confer any ownership interest in or right to use the Country Club”

When I discussed this CCR with the Board (Tiffany Roland, in February 2012), she told me that under the current lease agreement we did not have the “right to use”, but were simply being granted “access” (which costs everyone $15/month!)!!!

All the language in Article VII of the CCR’s needs to be clarified – as I read it, the SOA does not have any power to do/negotiate anything with the SGCC – a separate entity – outside our PUD.

We need to change/clarify this CCR Article and vote on the change. We should also get to vote on whether the SGCC land can be purchased into the Somersett PUD.

To understand the limited relationship between the SOA and the SGCC, as currently defined in the CC&R’s, I URGE ALL TO READ the following Sections of Article VII.

Section 3 – Declarant Easements

Section 5 – Ownership and Operation of Golf Club

Section 6 – No right to Use

Section 7 – Golf Club View Impairment

Section 8 – Limitation on Amendments

Advertisements

Comments on: "What’s the Delay? Fish or Cut Bait" (3)

  1. Joe Bower - Del Webb Owner, Member SOA said:

    Each change to the CC&R’s needs to be voted upon individually and not all changes lumped together for one vote.

  2. Gary Hurst said:

    I think the SOA BOD feels it will not get a majority of SOA members to approve a contract with SGCC, thus the desperation to get the definition of a quorum approved. If the quorum requirements are reduced, the bloc of Developer and Builder and SGCC member votes is large enough to quickly approve whatever contract is presented for a vote. The best hope for honest SOA members to defeat this dishonest effort by the SOA BOD is to abstain from voting on the quorum reduction amendment, thus preventing reduction of the quorum and keeping the Developer and Builder and SGCC member bloc a smaller portion of the quorum required to approved a contract with SGCC.

    The SOA BOD contention that a majority of SOA members (or even a majority of a quorum) must vote against the quorum reduction amendment to defeat it is dishonest. All that is required to defeat the proposed amendment is a failure to achieve the required threshold in favor of the amendment – a threshold that has not been achieved in spite of multiple voting deadline extensions, illegal opening of and counting of votes before the conclusion of voting, and other violations of democratic voting procedures. How many SOA member lots have changed ownership during these dishonest extensions, and been allowed to change their vote – something that is not allowed in a secret written ballot?

    The facade of a fair election is hurting property values of SOA members. The SGCC property should be sold to SOA and opened to all SOA members equally. That is a contract that would likely be approved without reducing the quorum and disproportionately empowering any small bloc of members.

  3. Jim Haar said:

    Geoffrey and Gary both make some credible points.

    First, it has been a year since the BOD started negotiations with the Country Club on a new agreement and eight months since the signed letter of intent. Surely this is sufficient time to accomplish whatever due diligence was required. To date the BOD has refused to share with association members any details as to why the delay in reaching a signed agreement.

    Second, perhaps the delay in signing an agreement and putting it out for homeowner vote is indeed tied to the ongoing CC&R Amendment vote (even though the BOD says they are separate issues). That is, as Mr. Hurst states, if the proposed CC&R Amendment passes, then the BOD can apply the 20% quorum rule to the vote on the Country Club Purchase and Amenities agreement, making it easier to pass.

    Whatever the case, the BOD has not been forthcoming regarding reasons for the delay in reaching an agreement. It is time to be more transparent and provide association members with a definitive status report. Perhaps then, one can put all suspicions aside.

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: