November 22 2015 FACT Update From the Washoe County Assessor Records

Here are November UPDATED ‘FACTS’ from the Washoe County Assessor Records since the Oct 19, 2015 ArrowCreek411 posting FACT Update From the Washoe County Assessor Records for those who continue to believe that property on the golf course is worth 28% more than property NOT on the golf course, here are the FACTS:

  1. ArrowCreek properties continue to sell at a premium to those in Sparks and the North Valley as previously reported in our October 2015 update.

    a.) Seventy nine (79) properties were recorded sold in ArrowCreek between 17 December 2014 and 06 November 2015 (This according to the Washoe County Assessor).

    b.) Nineteen (19) of those properties were on the golf course (the property boundaries actually touch the golf course, not just have a ‘view’ of it). Fifteen (15) of those were homes with an average selling price of $235.27 per square foot. A hefty $4.96 per square foot increase over October’s value. No additional vacant lots were sold and the average selling price of $207,104.47 per acre remained constant.

    c.) Sixty (60) properties sold that are not connected to the golf course. Forty seven (47) of those properties were homes with an average selling price of $235.92 per square foot. This represents a further decline of 44 cents ($0.44) per square foot from the October report. Thirteen (13) properties were vacant lots with and average selling price of $147,900.05 per acre. No additional lots were sold in this category.

    d.) Homes that do not have a boundary with the golf course continue to sell at a premium to homes actually on the golf course. The gap is narrowing between the two categories and coming to a market stable point for all ArrowCreek property.

    e.) Although there were no additional sales of vacant lots, a premium remains if the lot has a common boundary with the golf course. This value between the two categories in general, appears to be following market trends.

    f.) The trends for our property values indicate that over the past six months of tracking, the values of homes off and on the golf course are now moving to a common point and it will be interesting to see if the trend continues.

  2. AC Nov DolPerSqFt

  3. With the ACHOA Board proposal now on the table it will be interesting to see if there’s any effect on the property price values as the ArrowCreek development heads toward a vote.

  4. Given ALL of the above ‘FACTS,’ do we really need this additional burden? Especially when we’ve done nothing to enhance the property we already own and no proof, only a belief, has been offered to justify the impact to home values, which appear to be following the market.

    Let’s focus our energy on improving the amenities we currently have and expand those amenities, by using our already available acreage and funding.

    If you wish to support The Club at ArrowCreek, you’re urged to become a member.

    By Ron Duncan


    Updated from Oct 19, 2015 posting October Fact Update From the Washoe County Assessor Records

    … which updates the Sept 21, 2015 posting September Fact Update: Here Are Facts

    … which updates the Aug 22, 2015 posting August Fact Update: Here Are Facts

    …which updates the July 27, 2015 posting July Fact Update: Here Are Facts

    …which updates the June 26, 2015 posting June Fact Update: Here Are Facts

    …which updates the June 4, 2015 posting You Want Facts: Here Are Facts.

    June 2015 Study on Golf Course Closure Impacts On Home Values in Northgate and D’Andrea.

Posted in ArrowCreek, ArrowCreek 411 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Proper Governance of ArrowCreek At Stake: Secret Shenanigans

This blog from last July now is even more important as we mark our ballots for our next year’s community leadership. It provides details on attitudes of some of the candidates running for the ACHOA Board of Directors. This article is not for the faint of heart. It is documented fact. Read the emails yourself.

arrowcreek411's avatarArrowCreek411

By Don Smaltz, July 13, 2015

My sense of what is at stake is: It is not just the HOA’s purchase of the golf courses, but rather it is the very governance of our community, not only on the golf course purchase issues but future matters as well.

When we purchased our homes in Arrowcreek, we agreed to be bound by and comply with the CC&Rs, which together with the relevant Nevada Statutes provide the governance procedures and requirements for our community. In the past year,we have learned that:

1. In 2014, 36 residents of Arrowcreek who are golfers formed an LLC, Friends of Arrowcreek (FOA), and made a deal to buy the golf courses out of Bankruptcy – and sell it to the HOA. That deal was made with the Board’s officers and its Directors with the connivance of the Boards lawyers, Maddox, Segerblom, Canepa, and its Community Manager…

View original post 1,026 more words

Posted in ACHOA, ACHOA BOD, ACHOA BOD Candidate, ArrowCreek, ArrowCreek 411, ArrowCreek HOA, ArrowCreek411, FOA, Friends of ArrowCreek | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Validation of Facts

By Ellie (original message here)

Gretchen, thank you for validating the points made by many on this website. You said it yourself: the club lost more money than it gained when it was open to the entire golfing population in our area.

You want homeowners to invest in an enterprise expecting to “wait many years and get paid back as the club makes money”. We all know that the golf club has never been self-sustaining or profitable. “Many, many” more people did NOT move here because of the golf: as a matter of fact over 70% enjoy living in Arrowcreek for reasons other than golf (per UNR demographic study and results .

As far as fear mongering: please stop threatening with development of the land if the HOA does not buy the golf courses: there is less than 1% chance of that. See Debunking the Myth of Developing New Homes. Please stop threatening with the golf course going brown: the FOA can help prevent that by increasing the current golfing fees to current market rates. The FOA can downsize and keep the land dormant. Instead, the FOA promises a minimal 10% increase of rates for current members for the next year, while asking the majority of homeowners to subsidize cheap golfing by purchasing 475 acres of land that cannot be enjoyed by non- golfers.

You enjoy the wonderful people you met at the club: homeowners will be kept out of the Club House even if they purchase the golf courses.

Please stop threatening with declining home values: the value of proximity to a golf course or any open land declines beyond 100 feet. And if the FOA were really considering development of the land or letting it go brown: that would contradict the FOA’s professed premise that anything other than a golf course will diminish home values, including and mostly their own.

Posted in ACHOA, ArrowCreek, ArrowCreek 411, ArrowCreek HOA, ArrowCreek Survey, ArrowCreek411, Demographics, FOA, Friends of ArrowCreek, Golf at ArrowCreek, Golf Course Closure, Golf Course Foreclosure, Golf Course Purchase, Golf Developments, HOA, HOA BOD, Home Values, Homeowner Questions, Land Re-Use, UNR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Crux of the Matter

By Ellie (original comment here)

Alex hit the nail on the head in his recent posts: the crux of the matter is that we homeowners do not know what the golf courses are worth as we only have had biased information regarding costs and impacts of the golf course purchase or alternative options presented to us by speakers selected by the board.

There have been numerous requests by homeowners for more information, and an independent opinion, a financial analysis, and an appraisal. To no avail.

Homeowners have literally pleaded with the board for their opinions and concerns to be heard and considered. To no avail.

To be heard, we only have this website, but nobody wants to be sued – that is the reason for so many anonymous entries on this blog. THE ACT site is FOA sponsored and monitored. Only approved blog entries will be published, and they would hopefully not sue one of their own, but even there you’ll find posts without a name. It is sad that homeowners have become afraid of speaking their mind and of their neighbors.

However, the premise that the purchase of the golf course will only cost us $31/m and is perhaps a good deal is wrong. This is just the beginning to cover the purchase loan, reserve fund, and property tax.

With the purchase we homeowners will also have to finance the maintenance and capital investments, and fire mitigation for the 36 holes of the GC that we will never get to use while the golfers are using it. Should the FOA decide to downsize: we homeowners will pick up the cost for keeping the land dormant: initially $160000/yr. per 9 holes. This is a contingency clause in the current version of the LOI between the HOA and the FOA. This makes the HOA (we the homeowners) a part of the FOA’s business plan.

Homeowners have asked for information regarding the current financial status of the golf club and the club’s long-term business plan. Again to no avail.

Should the FOA decide to declare bankruptcy, we homeowners will be asked if we want to buy the rest of the assets: the club house and the surrounding 50 acres. The HOA cannot sell any of the golf course property for profit: so what to do with it? So you see: $31/m is a half-truth propagated by the FOA: it is the minimum we homeowners will have to pay and with absolutely no control over the land. The FOA makes the decisions – we get to pay, and future generations will pay.

And by the way: FOA investors absolutely are expecting to make money. Their own chairman and spokesperson, Gary Pestello, said so at the HOA Board meeting on November 4, 2014. Gretchen said that FOA investors will eventually want to get a return on their money. And with $3.3M for just 36 holes of golf course we are paying way more than what the FOA paid for the entire course (the 36 holes plus the club house). And we are paying way above market price as was said by Gary Smith, who recently resigned from the very committee advising the board about the golf club purchase. We will even pay the SAD debt of $760K through Sept. 2017 for the FOA.

Homeowners wanted to know details about the negotiation process and the purchase price. Again to no avail.

Yes, it might be irrelevant to know the motivation of the FOA to buy the golf club, but they did so of their own free will.

Each one of us should have the same right, and not be forced into owning a golf club by a simple majority vote.

Posted in AC Golf Property Tax Burden, ACCC, ACHOA, ACHOA BOD, ACT, ArrowCreek, ArrowCreek 411, ArrowCreek HOA, ArrowCreek411, FOA, Friends of ArrowCreek, Golf, Golf at ArrowCreek, Golf Course Closure, Golf Course Purchase, Golf Purchase, Green vs Brown, HOA, HOA BOD, Home Values, Letter o Intent, LOI, Negotiating with Yourself, Opportunity to Invest, The Club at ArrowCreek, The Homeowner | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Comments on Proposed CC&R Revisions

By Ron Duncan

The following comments are mine in reviewing the draft AFHOA CC&R document. Some of the comments won’t make sense unless you open a copy of the DRAFT CCRs WITH GOLF Draft with Summary of Amendments. There are some real deal breakers in here and although no one has ever labeled me a libertarian, turning over power to the ACHOA Board doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Comment 1: Witnesseth: Paragraph 3, Third “No such adjustment shall affect the rights and obligations of any party hereto or any lot Owner, and the “Subdivision” and the “Nonresidential Area” shall mean the real property so defined herein, as adjusted by such boundary line adjustments.”

How do we guarantee that the adjustments do not affect the ‘obligations’ of the owners? Do we not all pay fees and taxes? And aren’t those ‘obligations?

Comment 2: Witnesseth; Paragraph 4, “The provisions of this Declaration are intended to create mutual equitable servitudes upon each of the lots and parcels in the Subdivision and the Nonresidential (as applicable) in favor of each and all other lots and parcels; to create reciprocal rights between the respective owners of all such lots and parcels; to create a privity of contract and estate between the grantees of such lots and parcels, their heirs, successors and assigns; and shall, as to the owner of each lot or parcel, its heirs, successors or assigns operate as covenants running with the land for the benefit of each and all other lots and parcels in the Subdivision and Nonresidential Area and their respective owners, present and future.”

The intent of the CC&R’s is NOT to provide ‘equitable servitudes’ between the subdivision and the Non-residential area. Most definitely it is between the lot owners solely. The Non-residential area is to be held separate per Article VII and thus has no place in the definition of the CC&Rs between ‘subdivision lot owners.’

Comment 3: Article 1, Section 2, subsection d; “”Association” or “ACHOA” means ArrowCreek Homeowners Inc., the Homeowners Lot association, which is a Nevada corporation.”

This definition is in error. ‘The Homeowners Lot Association’ is NOT part of the Articles of Incorporation. Please change the definition.

Comment 4: Article 1, Section 2, subsection f; “”Builder” means any person who purchases one or more lots for the purpose of construction of a dwelling and other improvements for later sale to homebuyers on parcels of land within the Subdivision.”

Put a period after the word sale and delete the rest of the sentence, it’s redundant and not needed.

Comment 5: Article 1, Section 2, subsection i;

Delete the two semi-colons following the word ‘hiking’ and delete the word ‘signage’ with the two semi-colons. Also, “certain;” makes no sense.

Comment 6: Article 1, Section 2, subsection m;

This does NOT belong in this document as the term is being eliminated with approval of this document.

Comment 7: Article 1, Section 2, subsection n;

The definition of “Golf Course” appears to be an old version. Under this CC&R revision, the ‘golf course’ may consist of 36 holes, the driving range, club house, maintenance facilities, restaurants, parking lots and ancillary facilities. PERIOD

Comment 8: Article 1, Section 2, subsection o;

To what is this definition applied? Is it to be applied to any property or is it applicable to the ACHOA or Non-residential property only? Improvements needs to clearly identify what it applies too. It would appear that it applies to ALL land within the Development Agreement.

Comment 9: Article 1, Section 2, subsection p;

Tentative maps no longer exist for the ArrowCreek development (that’s a developer term). Delete these references as only the ‘final’ map is pertinent.

Comment 10: Article 1, Section 2, subsection q;

“Majority” for purposes of voting power of Lot Owners eligible to vote means 50% plus 1 vote.” What’s trying to be said is, ‘Majority,’ for the purposes of voting power, means 50% plus 1 vote of all eligible Lot Owners.

Comment 11: Article 1, Section 2, subsection r; ““Nonresidential Area” when used herein shall mean collectively the portions of the Golf Course as defined in Exhibit D and as owned by FOA at the time of recordation of this Declaration.”

This should be reworded to read ‘‘Non-residential Area’ when used herein shall mean the portions of the subdivision, as defined in Exhibit D, owned by the FOA LLC at the time of recordation of this Declaration.’

Comment 12: Article 1, Section 2, subsection aa;

The last sentence of this subsection should be deleted as the ACHOA cannot develop lots as they are a Non-profit corporation.

Comment 13: Article 1, Section 2, subsection bb;

The “the location and boundaries of the Nonresidential Area are subject to change.” This statement is not true if this version of the CC&Rs is approved. The boundaries are specified by this approval.

Comment 14: Article 1, Section 2, subsection dd, item 4;

Please delete the reference to “Golf Course” (the ACHOA Does not anticipate owning a ‘golf course,’ only the property under a golf course) and Delete the word ‘Community’ from the Residents/Community Center as it is only a Residents Center.

Comment 15: Article 1, Section 2, subsection ee;

What’s meant by this entire subsection? ACHOA most definitely can exercise its right to guide/curb development on property under the jurisdiction of the ACHOA. We currently do this through the ADRC.

Comment 16: Article II, Section 1, subsection a; “…without limitation the funding, repair, replacement, management, operation, lease and maintenance of the following Common Elements: certain portions of the Golf Course, parcel 152-471-11 (commonly known as “the pit”)”

First objection is the reference to the Golf Course, shouldn’t that be a reference to the ‘Non-residential Area?’ Second objection is this parcel is “jointly operated,” Why is the ACHOA picking up ALL of the funding, repair, replacement, management, operation and maintenance of this parcel?

Comment 17: Article II, Section 1, subsection c;

Delete ‘bdeemed’

Comment 18: Article II, Section 1, subsection d.16;

Replace “Golf Course” with ‘Common Area.’

Comment 19: Article II, Section 5, Budget: “Unless, at that meeting, a Majority of all Owners rejects the budget, the budget is ratified, whether or not a quorum is present.”

Question: How is a ‘majority’ going to reject a budget without a vote? We do not have a facility to accommodate 547 people.

Comment 20: Article II, Section 7;

Update the reference to NRS 116.3110 to read NRS 116.311.

Comment 21: Article II, Section 9; “Such right shall not apply to the personnel records of the employees of the Association, except for those records relating to the number of hours worked and
the salaries and benefits of those employees; the records of the Association relating to another unit’s owner, including, without limitation, any architectural plan or specification submitted by a member to the Association during an approval process required by the governing documents; or any draft document, including, without limitation, minutes of a Board meeting, a reserve study, a budget, and a business proposal if the document is in the process of being developed for final consideration by the Board, and has not been placed on an agenda for final approval by the Board.”

If this is the ‘law,’ then why or how is the community expected to comment on DRAFT materials (i.e. CC&Rs and Bylaws)? Paragraph needs to allow community input on draft documentation.

Comment 22: Article II, Section 12;

Add an ‘n.’ at the end of the sentence.

Comment 23: Article II, Section 15;

Add that this addition requires a majority vote, not merely a board action.

Comment 24: Article III, Section 2; “Subject to the provisions of Article VII, Section 2, a purchaser of a Lot shall be jointly and severally liable with the seller for all unpaid assessments against the real estate without prejudice to the purchaser’s right to recover from the seller the amount paid by the purchaser for such assessments.” Article VII, Section 2 has absolutely no bearing on this paragraph.

It’s unclear what was intended.

Comment 25: Article III, Section 5, last sentence; “…and with opportunity for hearing as defined in the Association’s collection policy violation.”

Why is the word ‘violation’ here? It doesn’t make sense.

Comment 26: Article IV, Introduction, First sentence; “As more particularly specified in Article VII, the Nonresidential Area is exempted from the provisions of this Article IV.”

Either remove the word ‘this’ or remove ‘IV’ from the ending of this sentence.

Comment 27: Article IV, Introduction, Last sentence; “Otherwise, all uses within the Subdivision shall comply with the conditions and restrictions of this Article IV.”

Remove IV from the end of this sentence.

Comment 28: Article IV, Section 11;

Shouldn’t we reference our effluent water permit here? It specifies we are not to allow that water to reach the drainage.

Comment 29: Article IV, Section 16, Last Sentence;

Why do we distinguish a “Semi-custom” home form all others in our subdivision? I’ve had at least one property owner complaint about discrimination between custom home and semi-custom homes.

Comment 30: Article IV, Section 19;

This section needs to cite NRS 116.325 and 116.31034. The ACHOA cannot interfere with political signs for Board candidates, size restrictions notwithstanding.

Comment 31: Article IV, Section 24, Last Sentence; “The Board may adopt and maintain a Fuels Management Policy Fuels Management Policy to effect enforcement of this Section.”

Delete one of the redundant ‘Fuels Management Policy’ wordings.

Comment 32: Article IV, Section 25; “However, native vegetation will be allowed on any lots as long as they conform to the Association’s Fuel Management Policy and ADRC requirements.”

This is not a ‘however’ statement. Some lots came with a covenant that they were to leave 2/3 of their property natural. For those lot/parcel owners, the Fuels Management Policy and ADRC need to conform to those particular lots not the other way around. Placing a ‘new’ burden on lot owners is not a good idea or forcing them to strip their property is equally obnoxious.

Comment 33: Article IV, Section 28, Last sentence; “Parking of a vehicle on a street is not allowed, except on collector streets at a minimum distance from the intersection of one hundred twenty (120) miles; feet; inches? where parking is only allowed during special events with prior notice to Association’s Security staff.”

Comment 34: Article IV, Section 35; This section starts out with “No animals” and concludes with “Upon request of a Lot Owner, the Board, in its sole discretion, shall determine for the purposes of this Section…”

So, which is it, NO or ‘the Board at its discretion shall?

Comment 35: Article IV, Section 39;

Association approval to access perimeter lots may also require written consent from Washoe County or the U.S. Forest Service as the land adjacent to ArrowCreek is not necessarily owned by the Association.

Comment 36: Article VII, Section 1, First sentence;

Delete ‘Golf Course’ and substitute ‘Subdivision’.

Comment 37: Article VII, Section 1, Second sentence;

Strike thru ‘s’ should be removed.

Comment 38: Article VII, Section 2, Second paragraph;

Delete the entire paragraph. This is a throwback to the ‘Community Club’ concept.

Comment 39: Article VII, Section 3, subsection c;

This easement should be bounded by the effluent water permit and restricted accordingly. The ACHOA does not want to be held in violation of that permit as it would endanger our ability to use the water on common areas.

Comment 40: Article VII, Section 3, subsection d;

This easement should also be restricted to piping smaller than 2 inches. ACHOA will have the responsibility for everything larger.

Comment 41: Article VII, Section 3, subsection g, First sentence;

Strike thru ‘s’ should be removed.

Comment 42: Article VIII, Section 3, First sentence;

Delete ‘the Declarant’.

Comment 43: Article IX, Section 1, Second sentence;

At the end of the sentence ADD the words ‘upon approval of a majority of the lot owners.’

Comment 44: Article X, Section 8;

Why isn’t the “Water Agreement, March 18, 1997” not one of the appendices? Where exactly do we find it among our governing documents?

Comment 45: Article XI, Section 10;

This section needs to be re-worded to remove references to the ‘Declarant’.

Comment 46: FOA LLC Signature block;

This block should carry the caveat that their signature is in recognition of the changes to Article VII and they accept those changes as written. They should then sign this before it goes to a vote of the property owners. They will all get a chance to then approve these changes through their respective owner votes.

— THE END Ron Duncan Review of Modified CC&Rs —

Posted in ACHOA, ACHOA CCRs, ArrowCreek, ArrowCreek 411, ArrowCreek HOA, ArrowCreek411, CC&Rs, Changes to HOA CC&Rs | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Reblog: Some Very Important Questions

By ArrowCreek Truth

Last week we had a reader (Jason) present us with a series of important questions. We decided that those questions and their answers deserved their own blog post. Thank you, Jason, for your thoughtful questions. We hope that this post will help to clarify the issues for you and all our neighbors.

Question 1: When the FOA bought the golf course, was there any kind of expectation that the HOA would take it off their hands? Or did they buy it, knowing full well that they were taking complete ownership of the risk?

Question 2: What motivated the FOA to buy the golf course? 

  • The entire motivation of the FOA was to be a bridge between the bankruptcy and the purchase by the HOA, with the expectation that the HOA would buy the Club.

Question 3: If the FOA’s motivation was to make a profit, shouldn’t they list this deal on the open market and invite other bidders to participate and let the high bidder take it?

  • The commitment of the FOA was always to offer it to the HOA first.

Question 4: If this is an “opportunity” for the HOA, why wouldn’t the FOA want to keep this “opportunity” for themselves?

  • The FOA’s motivation has always been to be a bridge, allowing time for the HOA to explore options. The current option ensures the HOA has control over the land.

Question 5: Did the FOA pay less for the golf course than what they’re asking the HOA to pay to “acquire and control the land assets inside the gate?” Please be specific on the numbers.

Question 6: If yes, then why would the HOA consider buying something for more than someone did recently?

  • First, it is important to remember that residents are NOT BEING ASKED TO BUY A GOLF COURSE. Rather, this is an opportunity to purchase the MOST VALUABLE ASSET behind our gate: the LAND beneath the golf course.
  • The current proposal is based on the $2.6 million the FOA paid to take the course out of bankruptcy, plus the $1.3 million the FOA expended on repairs and improvements to both the land to be purchased by the HOA and the clubhouse to be retained by the FOA. Negotiators arrived at $3.3 million, which has the HOA paying back some of what was spent on the assets they will acquire and has the FOA having expended $500K on the assets it will retain.

Question 7: If there’s a risk of the golf course going bankrupt without the HOA coming in to do this deal, why isn’t the HOA allowing that to happen? (The HOA would get a much better deal from a bankruptcy court buying a distressed asset, and the HOA’s fiduciary duty is to ALL the homeowners, not the FOA.)

  • If the course goes into bankruptcy there is no guarantee there won’t be offers by others who may not have the best interest of the community in mind, as does the FOA.

Question 8: What guarantees do residents have that the proposed $31/month is all that they’ll ever need to pay to support this golf club?

  • $31/month is based on: loan payment of $26; reserve payment of $2; and tax increase of $3.
  • There is high confidence in $31/month.

Question 9: What studies have been done and shared with the homeowners on how HOA dues affect property values?

  • Please see the Pringle study on the ASSOCIA website. On page 5 and in appendix B it discusses the only study to examine this issue and discusses the application of that study to our community.

Question 10: Does anyone else think there’s something silly about paying to acquire the use of a high-maintenance, high-overhead, grass-intensive asset in the middle of a drought? 

  • The water that is used on the course is reclaimed non-potable.
Posted in ACHOA, ACHOA BOD, ACT, ArrowCreek, ArrowCreek 411, ArrowCreek HOA, ArrowCreek411, Golf at ArrowCreek, HOA BOD | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 35 Comments

Please Exercise Your Right to Vote!

To our friends and neighbors,

We have six candidates running for three ArrowCreek Homeowner Board positions. All of them have good qualifications, but we believe that the three people that will best represent our community and have the best vision for our community are:

Dave Steele, Bob Kirtley and Robert (Bob) McDonald

Please consider voting for them,

Sincerely,

Tom and Yvonne Bates

Posted in ACHOA, ACHOA BOD, ACHOA BOD Candidate, ArrowCreek, ArrowCreek 411, ArrowCreek HOA, ArrowCreek411, HOA BOD, HOA BOD Ballots, Vote | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

ACHOA ACCC Meeting Set for Thursday, Nov 19

Just posted on the Associa website:

The ArrowCreek Community Club Committee (ACCC) will meet
on Thursday, November 19, 2015 from 11:30AM-1:30PM. remember

Location: Residents’ Club
Date: 11/19/2015
Time: 11:30 AM – 1:30 PM

Posted in ACCC, ACHOA, ArrowCreek, ArrowCreek 411, ArrowCreek Community Club Committee, ArrowCreek411 | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reblog: ArrowCreek Golf Course – Crunch Time

By Somersett United

The Arrow Creek Homeowners Association (ACHOA) is close to finalizing their purchase plan and CC&R modifications pertaining to their proposed purchase of the ArrowCreek Golf Course (for reference, see previous post entitled “ArrowCreek Golf Course the Heat Continues”, dated September 28). Apparently the ACHOA is targeting to have both submitted for homeowner vote sometime in December. Needless to say this has fostered a lot of dialog, both pro and con, amongst the ArrowCreek homeowners in the past month. Since the ArrowCreek purchase plan has similarities to what happened here in Somersett, the ongoing dialog pertaining to golf course bankruptcy, environmental impact, property values, and homeowner assessment implications may also be of interest to our readers.

Read more here: ArrowCreek Golf Course – Crunch Time.

Of particular interest is the comment at the end – Somersett learning from ArrowCreek – and ArrowCreek411 had suggested so long ago (07/14/15) that ArrowCreek could have learned from what Somersett went through: Attention ArrowCreek Homeowners: Somersett Golf Course Financials……

Posted in ACHOA, ACHOA Bylaws, ACHOA CCRs, ArrowCreek, ArrowCreek 411, ArrowCreek HOA, ArrowCreek411, SOA, Somersett, Somersett United | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Holiday Meet the Artist Boutique at The Club at ArrowCreek Dec 6

snpaa_logoThe Sierra Nevada Performing Arts Association, a non-profit organization, focused on supporting the Performing Arts in Northern Nevada and providing Scholarships to talented students graduating from our local high schools, is pleased to invite all to their first ever: Holiday Meet the Artist Boutique at No Cost, with optional Wine Tasting and Dinner at the Club at Arrowcreek on Sunday, December 6.
Event details may be accessed by clicking on the following link: SNPAA Holiday Event

Featured are works of several local artists in paintings, art glass and pottery, wood work, jewelry, candles, soaps and many other items. All available for purchase, that will make great holiday gifts. The Holiday shopping is free, so the more the merrier. In addition to the holiday shopping boutique the following optional events will take place 1) Wine Tasting & Appetizers at $35/person, 2) Wine Tasting, Appetizers and Dinner with festive decorations and live entertainment at $110/person or a table for eight at $825. Dinner Seating is limited, so if interested, confirm now.

Upcoming 2016 SNPAA Events include:

  • April 16 – SNPAA Gala at The Grove
  • April 23- SNPAA High School Competition at Nightingale Concert Hall
  • July 30 – SNPAA Night In France Music Festival Underwriting Part
  • August 26, 27, 28 – Reno Tahoe Music Festival at Bartley Ranch, featuring Tribute Bands for Tim McGraw, Heart and Chicago, in addition to local talent
  • December 2016 – Wine Tasting Dinner, Date and Place TBD

Reservations may be made online for all SNPAA events by visiting their website at www.snpaa.org and clicking on the “Events” tab.

PRINT/VIEW FLYER HERE

Posted in ArrowCreek, ArrowCreek 411, ArrowCreek411, Sierra Nevada Performing Arts Association, SNPAA, The Club at ArrowCreek | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment