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

Canyon 9 Golf Course

The following regarding Mr. Guderian’s previous post of “Golf Course Knowledge” and subsequent reader comments.

The Canyon 9 Par 3 Nine Hole Golf Course is owned and operated by the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) as an amenity available for play by all Somersett residents for a fee. Play is also open to the public at a higher rate (see Canyon 9 Rate Structure at end of article).  Canyon 9 Operations are financially accounted for within the Common Area Operating Budget, which per 2018 contains the following related items:


  • C9 Operations – $320,000 (includes 3rd Party Maintenance Contract)
  • C9 Loan Interest – $20,116
  • C9 Operation Expense – $2,200
  • Other – None specifically identified as a Canyon 9 Expense (e.g., administrative costs)


  • C9 Green Fees, Equipment Rentals & Merchandise Sales – $36,000 (represents both SOA resident and public play)

The proceeding amounts are in keeping with expenses/revenues experienced in past years. As such, they represent a deficit of approximately $300K/year in Canyon 9 Operations to be made up via owner assessments, which amount to approximately $8.33/month.

It is unreasonable to expect Association amenities to be self-supporting, that is what association dues are all about. However, whether or not Canyon 9 serves a significant enough portion of the SOA Community to justify its expense has been put into question. Keep in mind it is one matter to question the financial justification of maintaining Canyon 9 as an Association amenity, but quite another to determine what to do with it should it be shut down.

Note that the biggest expense with regard to Canyon 9 is its maintenance. In the past, this service has always been provided via contract with the Somersett Country Club (SCC), which for the past two years was set at $309K annually. For 2018, this contract was recently awarded to Reno Green at $262K (a $47K annual savings).

In his response to Mr. Gurdrian’s post, Mr. Brooks expressed a concern on how the loss of maintenance revenue to the SCC, coupled with Rockery Wall failure liabilities, could impact SCC’s financial stability. This remains to be seen, as the SOA Board has not yet released any information on perceived SCC liability and/or legal action with respect to the Rockery Wall failures.

Canyon 9 Rate Structure

Seasonal                                                             Winter

  • Residents:  $7 Adult, $5 Junior                   Residents: $5 Adult, $3 Junior
  • Guests: $10 Adult, $7 Junior                       Guests: $7 Adult, $5 Junior
  • Public:  $20 Adult, $15 Junior                      Public: $15 Adult, $10 Junior

Comments Welcome!




Golf Course Knowledge

The following inquiry submitted by Steve Guderian, BOD Member

I am looking to hear back from the Somersett Community on the following:

  • Who Owns Canyon Nine Golf Course?
  • Who governs the Somersett Golf Country Club, SGCC?
  • And what does the SGCC do for the community?

I have been doing my research into this but I would really like to hear what the community has to say about these things.

Steve Guderian
SOA Secretary

SOA Bylaws Changes

The following memo submitted by Steve Guderian, SOA BOD Member:

Thanks to SU for posting the info from the last SOA board meeting about the bylaw changes. SU made an interesting point about all of the community owned documents needing updated. A point that I agree with but I am not sure if this is a task that can be undertaken by the board alone in a reasonable amount of time. I also agree with the concern regarding 3 years being a long time commitment. Not only is there a possibility of board member resignations there is also a possibility of less people running for the board due to the 3 year commitment. Conversely, there really is a pretty steep learning curve for new board members and it does take a couple of years to actually get an understanding of NRS and all of the items associated with community. Overall I believe that this is a bylaw worth changing to see how things play out. Similarly, the change for the quorum change is also really needed. I would change it to 51% rather than 60% but either way works.

Over the course of reading SU posts I have seen a number of things about changing the community documents. At the very first meeting of the new SOA board this comes up and I have not seen any feedback from the Somersett Community. I would very much like to hear from the community on;

  • Any changes that need to occur to the community owned governing documents,
  • How much cost should be considered with this change
  • Follow up to cost, Should all of the documents be changed under one mailing?

Regarding cost, for the sake of this cost example lets say there are 3000 homes. This means any changes or denial of changes is going to require 1501 homes to vote. History tells us that it is going to take multiple mailings to reach this number. And there really is a chance that this number will not be met.

So, is going forward with community owned document changes a cost worth effort?

I am looking forward to hearing what the Somersett community has to say about this.

Steve Guderian
SOA Secretary


At the December 14th Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting, vendor bids for the following SOA budgeted items were opened, discussed and approved:

TCTC Pool Redesign, Site Plan and Project Management Proposals

Discussion and approvals on this item were deferred until the next BOD Meeting. This to allow for review of a recently received proposal that was not included in the December 14 BOD Meeting Package.

Canyon Nine Golf Course Maintenance

Received Bids (2-year contracts):

  • Somersett Golf and Country Club – $309,000 annually (price included approximately $10k  in electricity costs for water pump operations, which were not included in other vendor bids).
  • Finishing Touch Landscape Maintenance – $321,700 annually
  • Reno Green Landscaping – $262,347 annually

After some discussion, primarily regarding Reno Green’s expertise with golf course maintenance, their history in adhering to contract costs and the significant price difference, the BOD voted to accept the Reno Green bid (three yes, one no and one abstention). This subject to staff review and verification that the Reno Green proposal addresses and meets all proposal requirements.

Town Square Landscape Maintenance

Received Bids:

  • Reno Green Landscaping – $24,144 annually
  • Signature Landscapes – $24,972 annually

Encompasses maintenance of all land within the Town Center complex except for TCTC interior pool area and the land dedicated to the “Greens at Town Center” residential development. The BOD voted unanimously to accept the Signature Landscaping proposal. One reason being to assess them as an alternate to Reno Green for future considerations.

Drainage Way Repair

Received Bids:

  • Gradex – $28,454
  • Sierra Nevada Landscape – $35,327
  • MMW Construction – $30,300

This contract addresses repair work on some common area drainage ditches. The BOD voted unanimously to accept the Gradex bid.


At the December 14th BOD Meeting, the BOD President proposed, for discussion purposes, amendments to the SOA Bylaws, which would essentially, 1) increase BOD member terms from two years to three years and 2) change the “quorum” requirement necessary for the BOD to conduct official business from four members to three members. After some discussion, the BOD members agreed to review the Bylaws with regard to these changes plus any other recommended changes that they may have. All recommended changes would then be brought to the BOD for approval. Any approved changes would then be submitted to SOA owners for a ratification vote as required by Nevada Law.

Editorial Note:

The SOA Bylaws are not the only governing documents in need of a critical review. Perhaps more importantly are the CC&R’s and Articles of Incorporation. Please access the October 2017 Archives for the post entitled “SOA Governing Documents” for a summary of reasons for updating these documents.

Therefore, it is suggested that the BOD expand their review of the Bylaws to also include the CC&R’s and Articles of Incorporation, or perhaps appoint a Committee to accomplish same.

December 14th BOD Meeting

The next Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (BOD) open meeting is scheduled for December 14th, 2017 at 5:30 PM in the Canyon View Room at The Club at Town Center (TCTC). The Meeting Agenda may be accessed by clicking the following link:

December 14th BOD Meeting Agenda

The BOD Meeting packet which contains some of the details behind Agenda topics is available on the SOA website ( under the SOA/Committees & Meetings tab. Packet details are summarized as follows:

Committee Reports

  • Budget & Finance – Final approval of the consolidated debt bank loan to help finance the hillside and rockery wall repairs. Also, a recommendation to approve the appointment of Maryann McKinley to the Committee.
  • Communication – A recommendation to approve appointment of Nancy Chantos to the Committee.
  • SOA Parks – A discussion on a fund raising plan for the Somersett West Park. The City of Reno will be contributing $850,000 to its construction. However, per current plans, an estimated $1,250,000 will be required for completion. Therefore, a fund-raising project, conducted in conjunction with the Truckee Meadows Parks Foundation and the City of Reno, is planned to raise an additional $450,000. Details of the proposed fund rising project may be assessed by clicking on the following link:

Old Business

  • Legal Update – The SOA has settled lawsuits with twelve of the fourteen Somersett owners who purchased Northgate Golf Course property and subsequently incorporated it in into their original Somersett parcels. Litigation centered around the application of SOA governing documents to the Northgate parcel acquisitions. Settlement details with the twelve owners have not been released by the SOA. Litigation with the two remaining homeowners continues.
  • Rockery Wall & Landslide Repair  –  A status update by SOA Consulting Engineer Seth Padovan.
  • Pool Redesign, Site Plan & Project Management Proposals – The BOD Packet only contained a proposal from Ohlson Lavole Colllaborative (OLC) for additional services associated with the TCTC Pool Redesign Project. OLC is the same firm that developed the Pool Redesign option previously approved by the BOD, for which OLC’s construction estimates were grossly underestimated come bid time. The result being that this project is now on a construction hold. No “Site Plan or “Project Management” services were described in the BOD Packet.

New Business

  • Golf Course Maintenance (Sealed Bids) – In past years, this contract has been awarded to the Somersett Country Club at a price of slightly over $300K. It will be interesting to see if any competitive bids have been received.
  • Town Square Landscape Proposal – Two proposals for landscape maintenance of the Somersett Town Center properties have been received. One from Signature Landscapes for $24,972 annually and one from Reno Green at $2012 per service month. This encompasses all land within the Town Center complex except for the TCTC interior pool area and the land dedicated to the “Greens at Town Center” residential development. See SU’s previous post of December 5th entitled “Town Square Properties Cost Center” for background on the origin of these proposals.
  • Addendum to IT Contract – A proposal from IQ Technology Solutions to provide the SOA’s IT support at the rate of $2384 per month.
  • SOA Committee Items – 1) Primary and Alternate Board member assignments to the individual Committees, 2) Listing of owner memberships on individual Committees, 3) Proposed revisions to Committee Charters.
  • By-Law Revisions – The BOD is proposing changes to the following SOA By-Laws: 1)  Section 3.03 “Election and Term of Office”, change would increase the  BOD’s term of office from two to three years, 2)  Section 3.10 “Quorum”, change redefines the BOD quorum for conducting business from 66% to 60%, or effectively, from four BOD members present to three members, 3)  Section 3.15 “Executive Committee”, this section is to be deleted in its entirety, it previously identified an Executive Committee comprised of the BOD President, Secretary and Treasurer, who could be granted some limited powers in conducting Association business.

Note: Section 5.04 “Amendments” of the By-Laws states “These bylaws may be amended or repealed by approval of majority of the regular members”. It is assumed that, unless defined elsewhere, that regular members refers to all Somersett owners in good standing. Therefore, an owner vote would be required.

This will be the first BOD meeting for newly elected BOD Members, Jason Roland, Frank Leto and Steve Guderian and the first presided over by Tom Fitzgerald as the new BOD President. Ryan Burns remains as the Treasurer and Steve Guderian will serve as Secretary. Owners are encouraged to attend this BOD meeting, providing support to the new Board and to observe how they will function in the months to come. Also, to express their opinions or concerns on any of the agenda topics at the opening of the meeting, or unrelated topics at the conclusion.

Looking forward to Somersett’s first annual Neighborhood of Lights Contest? It is lready in full swing with spectacular nighttime dispays up for the enjoyment of all.

A map of homes participating in the contest will be available at The Club at Town Center (TCTC) through December 15th, along with the ballots for voting for your choice. If you have not yet done so, pick up your map, take the tour, and make sure you drop off your completed ballot at TCTC by the December 15th deadline.

Subsequently, all residents are invited to attend the “Celebration of Winners” gathering to be held at TCTC on Sunday December 17th from 5 to 7 PM.

In the SOA’s 2018 Budget Mailer package you may have noticed a “Town Square 2018 Operating Fund Budget”. This represents a newly implemented cost center associated with management of the Somersett Town Center properties in accordance with their governing documents (e.g., the CC&R’s referenced below). Currently these properties consist of the two commercial buildings (separate owners), the SOA’s Club at Town Center (TCTC) and the vacant lots owned by the SOA (presumably dedicated for future TCTC expansion). Since the SOA is the largest owner of the Town Center properties, it falls within the SOA’s purview to oversee management of these properties in accordance with their governing documents.

Per the 2018 Operating Fund Budget, collected revenue via owner assessments will total $136,436 of which approximately $88,865 is for operating expenses and $47,571 for the reserve fund. Owner assessments will be distributed as follows:

• TCTC pays in a total of $81,198 annually, of which $ 28,311 goes towards reserves (included within TCTC 2018 Budget)
• Commercial property #1 pays $28,546 annually, of which $9,953 goes towards reserves.
• Commercial property #2 pays $26,692 annually, of which $9,307 goes towards reserves.

A breakdown of the ~*89K of budgeted operating expenses are as follows:

• Management oversight (by FirstServices Residential) – $31K
• Landscape Services Contract – $24K
• Road Maintenance Snow Plowing & Sanding – $20K
• Legal Fees – $8K
• Misc and Other Contracted Services – $5K

The intent here is to assure that the look and feel of the Town Center properties are maintained in a way that is consistent with the rest of the Somersett community. In the past this has not always been the case. Therefore, it will be interesting to see if any conflicts arise between the SOA and the commercial building owners in this regard.

For those who may be interested, the CC&R’s applicable to the Town Center properties may be accessed via the following links (note that, like most of the Somersett community governing documents, they are in dire need of updating):

Somersett Town Center CC&R’s
Somersett Amended Town Center CCR’s

Any questions or concerns about the Town Center properties?  Email the FirstServices Residential Project Manager Ryan Dominquez at


Submitted by Joe Bower, Sierra Canyon Owner

Don’t know who, but the suspicious finger points to Steve Guderian or Loren Farell two Sierra Canyon board members and both retired cops who have long been concerned with traffic matters within greater Somersett. Whoever you are, congratulations. Yes, I80 is not in greater Somersett, but close enough and all residents can benefit. Steve is also on the Somersett board.

Written by: Dennis O’Brien Communications Director – Sierra Canyon

“Many residents of Sierra Canyon choose to live here because it is perfect in so many respects. First, of course, is its status as a Del Webb, active adult community.

Another feature that may have been attractive to a lot of our current residents is the location of Sierra Canyon. The community is set either in the back or front of Somersett, depending on which way you exit and enter. It’s close enough to everything you need in the way of shopping and entertainment, yet far enough that every aspect of the city doesn’t permeate the quiet existence many residents love.

Of course, because of its seclusion, there are only two ways in and out of Sierra Canyon. You can either take the long trek down Somersett Parkway through a series of roughly 239 roundabouts (hyperbole, it’s really only six) or you can take the much shorter route to Interstate 80, through one roundabout and on to what might be one the more treacherous on-ramps on the I-80 corridor.

This precarious on-ramp may have gotten a little less scary and A LOT safer for Sierra Canyon residents, thanks, in part, to a specific resident who shall remain nameless. This resident has spent a lot of time corresponding with the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) hoping to bring some much-needed attention to this dangerous traffic situation. The following are the recent improvements that were made to the on-ramp. And although not official, there are some other potential changes that may happen within the next two years:

NDOT has repainted the yellow lines on the left and the white line on the right as you ascend the on-ramp. The striping as you merge on to the freeway prior to the arrows, as well as the arrows have also been repainted. The striping and the arrows make you feel like you have an actual lane rather than being dumped right on to the freeway amidst the 65-plus miles per hour traffic. The reflectors on the right side of the on-ramp have been repaired and in replaced where needed. This will help the driver focus on the oncoming freeway traffic rather than thinking about driving off the on-ramp. Finally, the light at the top of the on-ramp is now working.

The bottom line, NDOT will be continually working on the safety of the on-ramp.

While the resident who has been in contact with NDOT wishes to remain anonymous, management and staff at Aspen Lodge would like to thank this person for helping to make their commute home, as well as the travel of all Somersett and Sierra Canyon residents much safer.

If and when management receives more information on future improvements proposed by NDOT, we will be sure to share them with the entire community. “

General Follow-up

Posted by Steve Guderian, SOA Board Member

I want to get to some general follow-up from some other SU posts, but first I want to make a quick statement;

It seems to me that there is some concern at SU and/or within the SU readership that if there are too many Sierra Canyon residents on the SOA BOD then the SOA BOD could become favorable to Sierra Canyon rather than to the entire SOA community. My believe on this is that the governing documents prevent this. The SOA bylaws and the CC&Rs are documents owned by the SOA community. This means that it takes a 50% + 1 vote from all of the residents in SOA to make changes. Sierra Canyon only represents about 1/3rd of the SOA community so they cannot generate enough votes to approve any type of change like this. It is time to move on from an individual community attitude to a one community attitude. My general impression at this point are that the current BODs in The Village, SC and SOA also believe in one community as there is far more strength and chance for forward progress for everybody if we move forward to this type of goal.

And, let me say right up front that I hope to be able to continue having discussion and information exchange on SU. Notice I said discussion and information exchange…. I want to hear back from the SU readers on things…. we do not grow without involvement.

Committees, these are being looked into as we speak. Hopefully in the near future more info on committees with become available. I have reviewed a couple of charters and I am sharing my findings. I plan on reviewing a few more documents.

Relationship between Master and Subs…. this is already being worked on and goes much deeper than just AGC and ARC.

Safety and Security, SU listed this as a priority for the new board….. please define what is meant by Safety and Security. Just an FYI, the two words, “Safety” and “Security” give insurance companies very, very huge pauses and jitters when they see these words in community documents. Think back to Sanford, Florida in 2012. So, anything in these topics needs to be very clear and concise.

“New and Improved Website” one thing I see here is that there is a limited listing of SOA residents. This infers a limited database of email addresses. One of the useful tools in SC is the “Email Blast.” Important and/or informative information is sent via email to the vast majority of SC residents via email. In one of the previous posts a comment was made about SC residents coming to the SOA website. Great idea, and things are being worked on to improve the numbers of SC owners that go to the SOA website. But based on what I am seeing so far, I am wondering what the traffic from SOA owners is like on the SOA website. I guess a question that comes to mind is that if SOA does not have email addresses, how is SOA suppose to effectively communicate with owners/residents?

Based on what I have been able to learn and to do in the last few days, and few weeks, there is a very high potential for SOA to make outstanding progress toward one community and a better overall community. But, in order to reach this goal it takes the whole community.

I know a lot of people are asking well tell us right now what is going on…. that is completely irresponsible and disrespectful on my part. Irresponsible in that you do not talk about thoughts or ideas that have come up in conversation until some action is being taken on them. Disrespectful because you do not talk about conversation with others unless you let them know what you are doing and they agree with what you want to say.

So, I am asking that SU and its readers be patient lets see how things start to play out with the new board in place you have got to give this board a chance to work and move forward.

Steve Guderian