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

somersett UnitedFollowing is a summary of some of the more significant items discussed and/or acted upon at the December 9th BOD open meeting.  Agenda items are indicated.  For all agenda items, click on the following link: December 9 BOD Agenda

Organizational Setup

Election of BOD Officers (3.a)

  • President – Susan Novell
  • Treasurer – Joe Fadrowsky
  • Secretary – Glenda Powell
  • Vice Presidents – Tony Fakonas and David Nisenfeld

Appointment of Primary BOD Committee Liaisons (3.b)

  • Communication – David Nisenfeld
  • Finance & Budget – Joe Fadrowsky
  • Strategic Planning – Tony Fakonas
  • Aesthetic Guidelines – Susan Novell
  • Community Standards – Glenda Powell
  • West Park – Susan Novell
  • Non-Committee Liaisons: Somersett Country Club – Susan Novell, TCTC – David Nisenfeld

Review and Approval of Requested Sierra Canyon Sub-Association Agreements (8.a)

Sierra Canyon is requesting that formal agreements between Sierra Canyon and the SOA Master Association be adopted to resolve issues regarding the following:

  1. Public Trail Maintenance – Sierra Canyon contends that, per association governing documents, the SOA is responsible for maintaining all public trails located within Sierra Canyon and should formally acknowledge and assume this responsibility beginning January 1, 2015.
  2. Architectural Review Delegation –  A request to review and formalize the current agreement
  3. Transfer Fees – This pertains to monies obtained from Developers by the SOA whenever a new home is built. The SOA has accumulated approximately $150K related to homes built in Sierra Canyon. The Sierra Canyon BOD is requesting the formation of a sub-committee of SOA and Sierra Canyon BOD members to discuss application of these funds to Sierra Canyon projects.
  4. Containment Fencing – A request to formally approve the Containment Fencing guidelines adopted by Sierra Canyon in 2013.
  5. Common Area Landscaping – The SOA is responsible for maintenance of common area landscaping along the Parkways within Sierra Canyon. The issue being what constitutes the SOA responsible landscape boundaries? Apparently this has never been specifically defined.  The request being that the two associations work together with a surveyor to define and document agreed upon areas of responsibility.

After significant discussions, no approval actions were taken on the above pending further reviews and meetings between the two associations.  Items 1) and 5) were identified as the priority issues with the intent of agreement approvals at the January 14 SOA BOD Meeting.

Review and Approval of Management Contract with FirstService Residential (8.c)

Renewal of the Management Contract was unanimously approved subject to some agreed upon modifications.

Review and Approval of Canyon Nine Maintenance Contract (8.d)

Bids were received from the Somersett Country Club ($286K) and the Groundskeeper ($252K).  The BOD voted unanimously to accept the Somersett Country Club (current vendor) proposal despite the $34K difference. This following a Board members expressed concern that Groundskeeper did not reference any local expert on golf club grounds maintenance and that their equipment list was not as specialized as the Country Clubs.

Review and Approval of Common Area Landscape Services Contracts (8.e)

The SOA request for proposal was broken down into four sections: 1) Common Area Landscape Services, 2) Tree Care, 3) Trail/Path Maintenance, and 4) Irrigation Control.

Bids were received from Groundskeeper (current vendor), Signature Landscapes and Reno Green Landscaping for all four sections. Two other companies only submitted bids for items 2) and 4) respectively. Totals (annual amount) for vendors bidding all four sections were:  Groundskeeper – $714K, Signature – $778K and Reno Green – $933K. Approvals were deferred until the January 14 BOD meeting to allow more time to review price breakdowns and the impact on use of single vs multiple vendors.

Miscellaneous Contract Approvals (8.f, g, h, i)

Various contracts pertaining to standard association business were unanimously approved. These included: 1) Common area fence repair, 2) Somersett Parkway shelf cleaning and boulder removal, 3) SOA website support services and,  4) IBS Point of Sale service for TCTC.

Review and Approval of Funds for 2016 Survey Incentive (8.m)

The Communication Committee is preparing a new and more comprehensive owner survey to be conducted in February 2016.  As an incentive for owners to participate, a prize up to $700 in value will be given, via raffle, to a winning participant.

Review and Approval of Committee Recommendations (8.n)

The BOD approved a Communication Committee recommendation for a “Communications Director” position within FirstService Residential.  This subject to the review and approval of a detailed position description.

Usage of TCTC by Sierra Canyon BOD (8.o)

A Sierra Canyon owner had questioned the use of the TCTC by Sierra Canyon for Board or Committee Meetings.  Apparently under the premise that Sierra Canyon owners are not members of the TCTC and hence should not have such access.  The SOA ruled that granting use of TCTC for Sierra Canyon meetings was within their purview and not an issue.  They advised that granting such use will only be done as long as it does not impact any TCTC activities.

Advertisements

Comments on: "December 9th BOD Meeting Summary" (4)

  1. Patricia Brooks said:

    There were not more than 10 homeowners at the meeting, which lasted 2 hours..If a board meeting takes that long, perhaps meeting monthly would help.. A more frequent event might be better attended by homeowners, if they knew the meetings would not be so long.

  2. So the BOD awarded the Canyon9 maintenance contract to the Country Club over the Groundskeeper despite being $34K higher. Seems to me that the BOD has had no problem in the past giving the Common Area maintenance contracts to Groundskeeper on a low bid basis. However, that said, there is no question that the Country Club has more experience in this area. Hopefully the BOD awarded the bid to the Country Club on that basis and not for the sole reason of helping out the Country Club’s revenue stream. The Association has done enough in that area.

    Which brings up the question, how is the Country Club doing financially? Has the Associations $2.75M investment been put to good use? Will the BOD share the Country Club’s yearend financial data, as one of the Association goals for 2016 is to identify Country Club contingency plans?

  3. Geoffrey Brooks said:

    Danielle Kirby vetoed the suggestion that we spend an additional $35K on using a more advanced blacktop (used by the City) with the potential for a 7 or 8 year life before requiring renewal…we went with the traditional slurrying (relatively poor finish). Pity Danielle was not still on the Board to save $35K here as well; do we need to maintain an underutilized amenity Golf Course to Championship Standards?

  4. Joe Bower- Sierra Canyon Owner said:

    Definitely need monthly open session board meetings due to all that goes on in our master association and their many complexities. Too many things are tabled or postponed. Being a board member requires time and study just like “real jobs.”

    All owners need to receive the agenda and not have go looking for it on mysomersett. The Sierra Canyon Association puts the Board Packet on its website so owners can know “what’s up” at the meeting in more detail than the agenda allows.. Maybe Somersett does too, but I don’t know how to find it.

    In order for owners to know and participate more, committees need to have agendas beforehand and minutes posted afterwards.

    Regarding Groundskeeper, I call them Groundsleeper. We definitely need a change in landscape contractors. In my opinion, we should have two landscape contractors with each responsible for specific geographical areas.

    Also, all contracts should have a 30 day cancellation clause for us and a 90 day cancellation clause for them as we need time to find a replacement. All contacts should be for one year and automatically renew unless either side gives a non-renewal notice to the other.

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: