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

Somersett UnitedThe following is in response to a Country Club Member (i.e., see recent comment “Barry on $2.75 Million …”) threatening legal action against this website if we publish any future SGCC member confidential communications.  In this regard we offer the following:

  1. The published communication (i.e., see previous post entitled “$2.75 Million – What to do with it?”) was not distributed as confidential. However, most confidential email disclaimers are not legally binding anyway, especially if the recipient is not a signee to a confidentiality agreement. Also, a claim for breach of confidence typically requires the information to be of a confidential nature, which was communicated in confidence, and was disclosed to the detriment of the claimant. Perhaps the Country Club could explain what was so confidential in the communication, and if published harmed them in any way.
  2. But all the above is beside the point, what in the Country Club President’s communication should one be afraid of sharing with Somerset residents? It simply provides information to a question frequently raised, but unanswered, as to what will the Country Club do with the $2.75M.
  3. With regard to previous assertions that Country Club financials are nobody else’s business and confidential is simply not true. Being a non-profit, the SGCC is subject to IRS disclosure regulations. This is accomplished via annual submittal of IRS Form 990, which must be made available for public inspection. Analysis of these forms for years past reveal the following:
    1. 2010 – The SGCC showed an operating loss (i.e., Revenue less Expenses) of $560K. This is the year the Developer accomplished early turnover to the SGCC Equity Members.
    2. 2011 – The SGCC showed an operating loss of $628K. First year the SGCC was run entirely by Equity Members
    3. 2012 – The SGCC showed an operating profit of $32K. This represents the year the SGCC starting receiving approximately $440K/year in subsidy from Somersett Owner assessments (i.e., $15/month/unit owner). Without the SOA funding, one could assume the SGCC would have incurred an operating loss approaching $408K.
    4. 2013 – The SGCC showed an operating profit of $104K. Without the $440K/year SOA funding, one could assume an operating loss approaching $336K.
    5. 2014 – Financials not yet available. However, the SGCC continued to receive the annual subsidy from the SOA. In the published communication, the SGCC President stated that “For most of the last year the SOA contributions have NOT been included in our budget. Therefore, this Club operated in the black based on a sound budgeting and independent of SOA funds”. Good news moving forward but, as of yet, unsubstantiated.
  4. The published SGCC communication focuses on use of funds to build a clubhouse, something that is direly needed. However, Somersett owners need to be reminded that, under the terms of the proposed purchase agreement, in the event of SGCC default, the SGCC clubhouse and the land on which it stands does not revert to the SOA. That is, the SGCC equity members retain ownership and water rights to this property.

SU will not be intimidated by the likes of “Barry” (who we doubt is a formal spokesman for the SGCC) and will continue to post editorials and articles we believe to be of interest to our readers.

Advertisements

Comments on: "Confidential Information Breach?" (16)

  1. wow… You are so smart and resourceful. You can get the SGCC’s financials through IRS disclosure regulations. So what? If you have the inclination, desire, time and need to do so go right ahead and distribute them to whoever (or is it whomever?) you please, as they are public information as you state. Why you feel so compelled to do so is another question….

    BUT, internal communications from the SGCC’s board to it’s members is NONE of your business now and/or into the future. What the SGCC decides to do with the money it receives from the sale of their assets is again none of your business, just like if you sold your house (Gawd, please do so), you would have no right to know what your buyer plans to do with your house, once it has been sold to them. Ok, I’ll give you that this is a slightly different situation in that the purchase is being made by a homeowners association, but at a high level, the purchase of land and water rights is being made to secure the integrity of the community for decades to come, so what the SGCC decides to do with the money on their own property is a moot point and again NONE of your business. The SGCC will remain a separate entity for as long as we can all see (many many decades to come) and as you state the potential clubhouse and the land on which it stands will remain the property of the SGCC. Also, it is not part of the agreement that was ratified by over 3 to 1 of the residents that the use of the money be disclosed, and as such it will not be.

    And BTW, I actually do speak for the majority of the SGCC members (whether formal or not) and the SGCC plans to take steps to see that “confidential” communications to it’s members remain confidential and do not get shared with the likes of you or your negative dissident band of marauders. Whether we can take legal (or other member related) action against you, the SU website, or the person or persons sharing the information with you is still under review, but as I said we will do our best to keep our internal communications internal and confidential because again, they are NONE of your business. As you have demonstrated in the past you will only use them to distort, confuse, and attempt to negatively influence others to follow your agenda of harm to the SGCC.

    BTW, the 2014 financials should be available for you to access soon, so you can “substantiate” the claim in the confidential message to our members. Really? Maybe you need to move on and get a life?

    • Geoffrey Brooks said:

      Barry – you have always claimed in your frequent posts on SU that the SGCC is doing well and is in the black.

      What I fail to understand, given the close relationship between the SHOA Board and the SGCC, why non-golfing residents are kept in the dark as to how the SGCC is doing financially by Somersett’s HOA. I have been at meetings where Pat Gaskill has given us the broad strokes of whats happening financially and made muted responses to what the SGCC will do with the $2.75 million. (the IRS information has been published before on SU).

      I think that all residents have a right to know “whats happening” as the activities of the SGCC are very impactful on the affairs of all who live in Somersett – whether we golf or not.

      When I read Glen Anderson’s letter on SU, I assumed that you had shared it with SU, to prove that the statements you had made repeatedly concerning the SGCC’s financial condition were accurate!

      I, personally always believed you on SGCC finances. I was able to basically corroborate your past comments by talking to golfers. However, I had been told by many (golfers and non-golfers) that they were skeptical; they believed that the SGCC equity members would divide up the proceeds from the sale and close the club. What did I think the SGCC was going to do with the residents money? I applaud you for your openness and willingness to share vital community information. I certainly can sleep easier after reading that post.

      I assume that you are anxious to help bring the community back together again so we can move on – as you have said!

      I am glad that the SGCC Board has been able to put the private country club on a sound financial footing. I am looking forward to an opportunity to rejoin the private club as a social member and buy you a beer at the Sunsette Grille.

      • I’m almost speechless… I commend you for your comments and positive approach to the discussion. There were in fact a small minority of equity members that wanted to split up the money, but it was never a real consideration whatsoever. We all love our life here, our friends at the country club and the Country club itself. I’m sure you would be welcomed back with open arms and I look forward to playing with you some day in the future…

        Regarding disclosures to non members, I’ve belonged to several other clubs and none of them shared internal information with the non member residents, so it’s not unique to the SGCC in that regard, at least in my experience. It is a private country club and as such the business of the club is private to the equity members. I can understand your desire to know more, but you should also understand the clubs desire to keep internal affairs of the club private.

    • Brown Grass of Home said:

      Would you rent a property to a tenant without doing a credit check, Barry? Of COURSE the SGCC financials are germain to the SOA purchase decision. Their Due Diligence process would be (and probably will be) incomplete without verifying the financial health of their proposed tenant.

      The memo from SGCC seems pretty innocuous, and your rage that is was disclosed to the NDBMs(Negative Dissident Band of Mauraders)by an equity member strikes me as showboating. Or is there dissent over the deal in the SGCC ranks we aren’t hearing about yet?

      • The SOA is not renting to the SGCC, so why would a credit check be necessary? This is a purchase agreement between the SOA (the community) and SGCC. There has been a huge amount of due diligence done regarding the club, but again, it is a private country club and the internal information regarding the club will remain within the club to the best of our ability.

        • ReTiredofSomersett said:

          The plan is to lease the SGC to the Private Country Club for 50 years (+ 40 years of renewals).

          Even though the lease payments are only $2,200 a year vs the $70K a year we all have to pay in interest; I still believe that the financial health of the tennant is the concern of all the members of our home owners association.

          Rent or Lease – one normally asks questions concerning the financial health of the tenant.

          • REALLY?????

            There are over 375 SGCC members and growing fast. That’s $5.87/year per member (not much more than a sleeve of Titleist proV1 golf balls). I’m fairly certain that if push came to shove that each member would fork over the $5.87 (PER YEAR) to cover the lease payment. Please don’t lose sleep over whether or not the SOA (homeowners) will reliably receive their $2200/YEAR from the SGCC lease….

          • Ooooooops… My mistake. It’s a little more than a single Prov1 golf ball and half as much as a sleeve (3 balls – the preferred ball at Somersett)……

            Sorry, my mind was concentrating on how we were going to continue to cover that annual lease payment…

        • Not Rent ? said:

          Barry,

          To say the SOA is not renting to the SGCC is simply not true. A lease is nothing more than an agreement to pay rent for a specified period of time. Suggest you read Section 3 of Exhibit C “Commercial Lease” to the Purchase Agreement. Wherein the $2,200 annual payment to the SOA from the SGCC is clearly defined as “RENT”

          You need to re-educate yourself here as in your previous comments that the SGCC financials are confidential and no one else’s business.

          It is difficult to understand your sensitivity regarding SGCC financials and the demeaning rhetoric you direct toward those who, given the SOA investment, feel they should be made public.

          • What’s the difference if it’s called ,rent, lease or an annual Christmas present??????? It’s $2200 out of an annual budget 100’s and 100’s times that. It’s so insignificant in the big picture to suggest that a credit check, or access to financials to secure it is ridiculous.

            If you rented your lawn mower to your neighbor for a weekly rent of $12, would you ask him/her to fill out a credit application? REALLY?

  2. Mike Slattery said:

    It appears that open information is important to many people. Communication is the key to compromise. Therefore would someone publish who controls somersett united.
    Specifically
    (1) Who reads an approves the blogs?
    (2) Who are the officers of Somersett United? If no officers, what is the structure and is it a non profit registered entity?
    (3) Who funds Somersett United?
    (4) Is there a membership list?

    Looking foreword to the response
    Thanks
    Mike

    • Great point Mike – I’ve been curious about the same questions for quite some time…

      • Old Joe Clark said:

        Mike,
        I have appreciated your willingness to comment on this website and address many of the divisive issues raised here. It is funny that this blog author has named his domain “somersettunited” when he is obviously intent on dividing us up.
        In any case, this site is hosted on wordpress.com, which is a free hosting service. WordPress will create a blog for anyone who wants one, and will also conceal the website owner’s identity. The author of this site may be just one lonely person, and it costs that person nothing to publish his views. Any one who wants to could do this. It may not even be an adult, or a person who lives in Somersett. If fact, you could set up a similar website on wordpress, make comments, and also hide your identity, and no one would necessarily know it was you.
        Again, thank you for your comments. Remember that sometimes the best way to deal with negativity is not to deal with it at all.

        • In the Land of the free, assuming that Somersett is actually in it…

          MySomersett should have an “owner’s forum” where questions can be asked and answered.

          FR and the SOA Board, could post on Reno happenings, the continuing drought and what effect that will have on the HOA’s operations. They could post information concerning their future plans and ideas for owner comment and suggestion.

          Communication is one thing everyone espouses – but has always seemed to be woefully lacking here in Somersett, information has always been one-sided – never balanced.

          When the missive “the reasons to vote to buy the Golf Course” was sent to the owners – the SU web-site published the only pro-con encapsulation of the 110 page document – surely this should have been on the MySomersett site –
          when the vote started and mailed to all the owners with their ballots?

          Spending $2.75 million is a lot of money to buy something that is perpetually (almost) leased to a private company for $2200/year – ostensibly to keep space open for all. The valuable assets we are buying are locked up in a 90 year lease – I suspect that most bloggers, pro and con, will see value for their investment.

          The SU site has encouraged discussion and dissenting viewpoints. Many contributors have provided information which may help one to make decisions – kudos to the administrator!

          • Old Joe Clark said:

            NDBM = Not Done Being Mad?

            • "An NDBM" said:

              “The memo from SGCC seems pretty innocuous, and your rage that is was disclosed to the

              NDBMs(Negative Dissident Band of Mauraders)

              by an equity member strikes me as showboating. Or is there dissent over the deal in the SGCC ranks we aren’t hearing about yet?”

              Courtesey of the Brown Grass of Home

              Old Joe – Please note post from BGH

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: