June 26, 2008 by Norman McCullough.

The following message was read and submitted into the minutes of the Board meeting today. I will notify you immediately of any response from the board.

—————————————————

June 26, 2008. It would seem that the board of directors (with the exception of Bob Frank), are more interested in saving the Del Webb Corp. money, than obeying the law. I HAVE TEN QUESTIONS FOR YOU TO ANSWER THIS AFTERNOON.

· #1. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO RESPOND TO MY LETTER DATED JUNE 19, 2008 (SEVEN DAYS AGO)?

· #2. How much more of the resident’s money will be wasted in this insane endeavor to retaliate against Bob Frank for doing nothing more than following the law, and the mandates of NRS statutes?

· #3. How much longer will the board of directors (with the exception of Bob Frank), continue the cover up of the past board members misbehavior, and the mismanagement of the Villa reserve accounts?

· #4. Why does Roz Berman lie about the responsibilities of the Community Association Manager (Terry DaSilva), to store and provide documents to the residents?

· #5. Why does Mike Dixon admit in his presidents report that Del Webb did NOT turned over documents to the association on the date of transition, but he refuses to make complaints to the Dept. of Real Estate?

· #6. Why does Mike Dixon admit in his presidents report that Del Webb did NOT turn over all the money due the association on the date of transition, but he refuses to make complaints to the Dept. of Real Estate?

· #7. Why did Roz Berman and Mike Dixon cite material prices from contracts and bid/estimates that were incorporated into reserve studies, and now they can not produce those contracts and bid/estimates (if they ever existed)?

· #8. Why did Roz Berman and Mike Dixon allow members of the community and RMI (who do not have a reserve specialist license), to change quantities and prices that were incorporated in subsequent reserve studies?

· #9. Why did Roz Berman and Mike Dixon NOT become alarmed when it was pointed out to them that $47,000 +/- was MISSING from the reserve accounts of the four Villa neighborhoods on Dec. 31, 2000?

· #10. Why did some one this current Board of Directors LIE to John Leach when a letter was sent to THEM? Some one on this board informed John Leach that I had requested some thing be put on the agenda of the next board meeting, and that a decision had been reached. THAT WAS A LIE. I made no request to the board about the next meeting or the agenda.

Behavior like this is costing every person living here in Sun City Anthem money.

IT’S OUR MONEY, FROM OUR DUES THAT THEY YOU WASTING !!

IT IS FAR PAST TIME FOR YOU AS BOARD MEMBERS TO ACT RESPONSIBLY AND BEGIN TO TAKE YOUR FIDUCIARY DUTIES SERIOUSLY.

I demand that you schedule a public hearing to review all the facts mentioned in this memo.

I am furnishing a copy of this statement to Terry DaSilva, and I want this memo included in the minutes of this meeting.

Norman McCullough

Member No. 00345 x 202

Spokesman for the Villa homeowners in SCA

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

June 25, 2008 by admin.

Director Bob Frank has released more very important documents concerning the massive attack against him since August 2007. This ever-expanding library of records can be found at:
http://www.anthemvoice.org/violations.html

The latest documents include his recent requests to the Board to (1) stop the bogus attacks through the Nevada Real Estate Division, and (2) to be immediately reimbursed for the $28, 782.20 legal fees expended to date to defend himself against the other board member’s unsubstantiated/unproven claims of statute violations (as provided by NRS 116.785.5).

Unfortunately, Roz Berman and other board members have refused to accept any responsibilities for the bogus attacks and wasted community funds. The letters, response and analysis are found in the following files:

Analysis of Roz Berman Actions

Request to Dismiss Affidavit.pdf

Request to Reimburse Legal Expenses.pdf

Roz Berman Reply to Requests.pdf

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Other | Print | No Comments »

June 25, 2008 by bobfrank.

A few SCA members have asked me to respond to Berman’s latest blog comments about the allegations filed against me by Dixon last September. I have suggested they read all of the documents posted on Anthem Voice at: http://www.anthemvoice.org/violations.html

But, if one does not have that much time at the moment, the following legal analysis by “Nevada Trial Attorney of the Year” Bob Maddox does an excellent job of destroying the credibility of the bogus claims filed by Mike Dixon and John Leach. Bob Maddox’s Legal Analysis of Dixon’s Bogus Allegations

You might ask Mr. David Berman, the suspended attorney, or his good buddy, Mike Dixon, if either one has the guts to link to this file on Berman’s Blog and attempt to rebut or challenge any of Mr. Maddox’s statements?

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | No Comments »

June 24, 2008 by admin.

One of our AV participants has finally received the records concerning the infamous $16,700 “donation” from SCA Board to the Minuteman Foundation Board on October 12, 2006.

Here is what was received: SCA $16,700 Donation Check to MMF

It is significant to note that the President and Vice President of both corporate boards at that time were Favil West and Bob Berman. Naturally, allegations of self-dealing have been bandied about for a long time.

For your information, the names on the check documents include: Favil West, Kay Dwyer, Elaine Berg, Phyllis Washburn, Terry DaSilva and Arnie Snow. With all of that management and BoD oversight, one would think that is would be easy to get clear answers on exactly why was the check issued to MMF?

Many excuses and rumors abound, but exact, factual information has not been released by the Board or by RMI. If there is no reason for embarrassment or worse, why the secrecy and cover-up?

Some of the kinds of unanswered questions that continue to exist incude:

1. If the money mistakenly came from Pulte as claimed, why would it be laundered through SCA’s account if it was actually owed to MMF? Would it not be the proper/legal action to return the check to Pulte and tell them to route it properly?
2. Since both chief executives of both corporations were the same people, would not prudent officers have refused to be involved in any kind of such questionable transaction? To avoid even the appearance of improper actions, why did MMF not return the check to SCA, and ask that it have a new check issued directly by Pulte to MMF? Or, perhaps that could never have been done, and there really is a problem with the legality of the transaction?
3. Under what circumstances could SCA ever “donate” funds to MMF? Isn’t the whole idea of MMF to contribute funds to SCA’s Community Service Club (CSC) as a public service? And, since MMF rarely donates more than a few thousand dollars each year to Community Service Club, how could anyone make any sense out of a $16,700 contribution to MMF? It would save the community money for SCA to fund CSC directly.
4. Why the stalling to release the detailed check records and rationale? If this is a legitimate transaction, why don’t Past Board President Dixon and current President/Former Treasurer Berman and RMI/CAM Executive Terry DaSilva come clean on all the details, and stop fueling the controversy by stalling? Is it really that hot?
5. Under what circumstances could a $16,700 check EVER be secretly issued from SCA to MMF as a “donation”? Would that not require a formal Board action at a regular board meeting with the minutes reporting the details? Why did none of the persons involved in the transaction ever do or say anything about the legality of the transaction?

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | 4 Comments »

June 23, 2008 by THE VOICE.

In case you missed it, there was a front-page, below-the-fold, lead article in the June 19th South Valley Home News paper headlined: “Complaint Filed Against Sun City Board Member”.

Here is Kay Frank’s response to the SVHN editors:  Kay’s Letter to SVHN

Of course, the SVHN was not really publishing “news” since the Intervention Affidavit by former Board President Mike Dixon and his coalition was filed last September 7th!  But, the whole affair has been put under rigid wraps with unjustified secrecy since then.

And, when the community learns the full truth, it will finally understand why the Board desperately wanted to keep it all under wraps while they used every trick imaginable, all of the Board’s massive resources, and attorney John Leach to get the Nevada Real Estate Division to find a way to force Bob Frank off the Board. But, after almost 10 months of constant attacks with all of that concentrated firepower, Director Bob Frank is still serving on the Board and ready for any other tricks they might employ!

But, what should have been “news” this week was that Director Frank had decided to defy conventional wisdom by blowing the whistle on the outrageous costs being accumulated (currently estimated at over $60,000 and growing) and to begin public discussion on the facts concerning the outrageous acts of harassment, intimidation and retaliation against him by of our Board and the Nevada Real Estate Division. It is now clear that succumbing to the legal threats against him to keep silent this last year have not served the purposes of the Franks or of the SCA homeowners. We have all lost dearly in the process!

Some of Bob Frank’s lastest documents and records are found at this location. It will be updated weekly, so you might want to link your browser to it.

While David Berman has posted at some length on his blog about how he considered the article fair, the Franks have been insulted and distressed at the distortions and omissions of facts. So, after trying for a few days to ignore the unfairness of the paper, Kay Frank decided to write to the SVHN editors and inform them of just a few of the inaccuracies and omissions.

Stay tuned! This promises to be a developing story!

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | 4 Comments »

June 21, 2008 by bobfrank.

Since many of our SCA members served in and/or have personal links to individuals who served during the Korean War period, I am posting the recent AP news article and a first person report of a POW/MIA story that came to me from a close friend.

Please advise if you find this information to be particularly insightful, and/or post any related experiences you might have. Kay and I have been actively supporting the POW/MIA family programs since 1970, and it is heartwarming to get even minor reports as they help the healing process of so many who were left with such sorrow and emptiness after not being able to know about the fates of their loved ones. korean-war_pow-mia.pdf

Bob Frank

Posted in Veterans Affairs, Community Affairs | Print | No Comments »

June 21, 2008 by Norman McCullough.

Attention: All Villa homeowners in Sun City Anthem.

The following message was transmitted to the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors yesterday.

As you know, the association has never made any attempt to provide closure on their obligation to fund the remaining $370,279 to the reserves of the four Villa neighborhoods. When a reply to this letter is received, I will notify every Villa owner via US Mail, of the board’s decision in this matter.

Here then is the complete letter;
————————————————-

June 19, 2008

To: The board of directors of Sun City Anthem
Roz Berman (President), Carl Weinstein (Vice President), Shirly Cheri (Treasurer), Bob Frank, Roger Cooper, Mike Dixon, and Barry Friedman.

Re: My previous letter to you May 27, 2008 and response from John Leach June 6, 2008.
I’m not sure why, but I received a response not from you (or the president of the board), but from John Leach (on June 6, 2008), who incorrectly assumed that I had requested some thing be put on the agenda of the next board meeting.

The 2006 Reserve Study and the 2007 budget presentation could not be more explicit in identifying the reserve shortages in each of the four Villa neighborhoods. Also the 2007 budget imposed an additional $500 increase in the Villa neighborhoods annual assessment to address that shortage. The shortage has been traced back to the date of transition from developer control (May 31, 2005).

In my letter addressed to you on May 27, 2008 I made a specific request that the Board of Directors make good the $370,279 shortage in the reserves of all four of the Villa neighborhoods. The association assumed this responsibility from the developer when the Villa agreement was made a governing document of this community.

Subsequent changes to the budgets do not change the facts. The shortage in the neighborhood reserves was the responsibility of the developer in 2005, and now because of the Villa agreement the responsibility lies with the association.

I would expect the Board of Directors to do one of two things.

a. To comply with my request and direct the funds to the appropriate reserve bank accounts — OR

b. To respond with a legal paper detailing your position and stating why you believe the funds are not your responsibility.

As you are aware, the developer’s responsibilities in the matter were decided in The Villa agreement that limited the developers funding requirements to $241,000 (plus some hardscape). Nothing has been forthcoming from the association’s responsibility to close the remainder of the shortages indicated by the 2007 budget and the 2006 Reserve Study as adopted by the board of directors.

The board members would be well advised to get council on their personal liabilities in this matter. I am not a lawyer, but I can (and have) read the Nevada Statutes, and I find many reasons for the board to be concerned.
Thank You

Norman McCullough
Member No. 00345 x 202

Posted in Other | Print | 1 Comment »

June 17, 2008 by admin.

Kathy Matson and her ad hoc committee doing the planning for a Fall SCA fund-raiser for the Henderson Hospice Project has submitted responses to questions prior to the vote at the June Board Meeting.

Hospice Project Questions & Answers

Posted in SCA Board, Clubs & SIGs, Other | Print | 6 Comments »

June 15, 2008 by admin.

We have opened up a new category of Hot Issues on AnthemVoice.org concerning the ongoing Anthem Parkway Safety Issues and potential solutions. http://www.anthemvoice.org/traffic_issues.html

In the past few years, many residents have already been involved in this complex issue, but it will take a majority of our thousands of residents to achieve significant progress in the next few years. This is another case of we will get what we tolerate…

We all are directly affected by the traffic flow control plans (or lack of them) for the Anthem Parkway (beltway?).  If we do not do something now (as a community) to change the long-range traffic planning for the Anthem Parkway intersections with SCA villages, we will suffer many unnecessary deaths and injuries.

Please get involved, and stay involved!  Let’s hear from you concerning the problems and your preferred solutions!

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, News! | Print | 1 Comment »

June 10, 2008 by Norman McCullough.

On Ron Johnson’s Blog, Norman McCullough said:

Attention Mike Dixon;

I have been reviewing some of the statements in your president’s report of March 25, 2008. Apparently you published this report in response to Ron Johnson’s articles on this very web site. On that date you said;

Quote; “Based on current bids, we know that the costs per square foot for painting the villas is less than the cost of painting Anthem Center, so there is no justification for using the $1.57/square foot in the “look back.”

I have asked Terry DaSilva (CAM), for a copy of the “current bids” and the “contracts” that you referred to (in your response), but guess what? Terry says they are not SCA documents! The “current bids” and the “contracts” are no where to be found in the RMI records!

Can you please help me to locate and get a copy of these most important documents that were so instrumental in determining the yearly assessments of 162 Villa owners?

It would be much appreciated by the 162 Villa owners who suffered a $500 increase in their 2007 yearly assessments because of shortages in our neighborhood reserves. After paying that disputed increase, we are now told we have EXCESS money in our reserve accounts!! Well lets take a closer look at our 2008 budget to find out why shall we.

The 52 units in High Mesa contributed $26,000 into the reserves for their neighborhood in 2007 ($500 x 52). If that money had been returned to them, it would have reduced the reserve account for the 52 units to $162,000 and the reserves would STILL be funded at 99%.

The 58 units in High Mountain contributed $29,000 into the reserves for their neighborhood in 2007 ($500 x 58). If that money had been returned to them, it would have reduced the reserve account for the 52 units to $57,000 and the reserves would STILL be funded at 93%.

The 20 units in Canyon Crest contributed $10,000 into the reserves for their neighborhood in 2007 ($500 x 20). If that money had been returned to them, it would have reduced the reserve account for the 52 units to $53,000 and the reserves would STILL be funded at 91%.

Because of the mismanagement of the reserve funds in the Club House neighborhood the funds could not be returned to the 32 Villa home owners in the Club House neighborhood, but it would have been a nice gesture for the board to consider, since the those 32 Villa owners had to pay for seven years of “wear and tear” on the homes, that occurred when they were under declarant control.

Naturally all this could have been avoided if only the board had gone back to Del Webb to fund the reserves properly at the time of transition instead of laying the burden on the Villa owners, but now you’re stuck with the Villa agreement.

The Villa owners still have a problem with that agreement. Did you know that it’s possible that the attorney that is mentioned by Favil West and Kay Dwyer in the document, may actually been a Del Webb Attorney? What would be the legal ramifications if that becomes known?

Do you plan to make a similar agreement for the association regarding the $655,000 reserve shortage? If so remember you can’t include a “confidentiality” clause, it’s illegal.

June 10, 2008 9:07 AM

Norman McCullough also said:

Here is what our past president Mike Dixon said in his president’s message on March 25, 2008.

Quote: “On May 31, 2005, the declarant turned the Operating and Reserve Accounts for the Association, the Villas, and Pinnacle over to the Association as required.”

As we all know now, the association was “shorted” by at least $655,000 according to the recent findings of the “look back” task force.

Apparently Mike, the reserve accounts were not ENTIRELY turned over on May 31, 2005 as you had assumed when you were president of the board. Isn’t it time for a forensic audit?

Mike also said on March 25;

Quote: “Since the villas were “new” when they were first sold by the declarant, there was no “wear and tear” while under declarant control.”
and

Quote: “On May 31, 2005, the declarant turned the Operating and Reserve Accounts for the Association, the Villas, and Pinnacle over to the Association as required.”

I hate to point this out to you Mike, but the 32 Villas in The Club House neighborhood were all over seven years old on May 31, 2005 when the declarant turned over the paltry sum of $4,800 on that date for “wear and tear”. Lets see, that’s exactly $150 “wear and tear” on each of the 32 Villas over the seven year period. Could that explain why their assessments remain at $2000 per year, while the remaining 130 Villas assessments have been reduced?

June 10, 2008 7:09 AM

Posted in SCA Board, Operations | Print | 1 Comment »

June 8, 2008 by bobfrank.

Recently, I was asked by SCA representatives to the Council of Anthem Communities* to make some suggestions of common interest to all.  After thinking about it, I prepared the below item and post it here for public comment.

While all of my points are not fully formed or researched, it might prove useful to get some discussion on some of the specific ideas.  If there are any retired (or active) traffic engineers in SCA, now would be a really good time for them to declare themselves and consider helping us propose a revised approach to Henderson.

* New coalition of all Anthem Communities preparing to assume Anthem Council responsibilities when Pulte completes its construction.

———–

Possible Anthem Beltway Traffic Flow Control Components

Perhaps the single greatest missing element in the traffic control “system” around the Anthem Parkway is the lack of warning signs and speed control techniques used in other parts of the country where both temporary and permanent dangers to traffic and pedestrians exist.  Phil Hight and others working on this issue have already proposed (and implemented) some outstanding ideas.  The following are suggested as possible  supplemental ideas to their previous work.

For example:

• There are overhead and median signs to warn of slow fire station traffic entrances to the parkway, but nothing to warn at those intersections where handicapped and slow-moving seniors are crossing the “highway”.  At least, similar warnings are needed for handicapped and elderly residents.  The lack of such warnings could be considered a dangerous, potential elder abuse complaint with the Attorney General.

• Even the signs for fire station access are inadequate as there are no flashing red or yellow lights when actual entrances are being attempted as we find in other parts of the nation.  Henderson gives better protections for construction vehicles going on and off thoroughfares than they do to emergency vehicles and handicapped senior residents.  And, the volume of entrances of seniors to the full beltway numbers in the thousands per day–far more than construction traffic ever experience.

• Access controls and warning device options include far more than just warning signs and stop lights.  Such devices could include both warning signs and rough pavement strips to make intense noise at high-risk intersections when excessive speed needs to be reduced to 35mph due to dangerous crossing conditions.

• A system component used in CA are “proximity lights“  where pedestrians and/or vehicles can activate (via buttons and road sensors) flashing overhead/road side lights (red and yellow) that normally operate for 30 to 60 seconds to warn oncoming traffic in all directions to warn that dangerous cross traffic (i.e., seniors and handicapped people) are entering and/or crossing the road.  These kinds of highly visible traffic control lights may be off or just be flashing yellow for caution when side traffic/pedestrians are NOT present at that intersection. The lights are accompanied by warning signs that could show handicapped images as the reason to slow down to 35 mph in the case of needing to make a suddenly stop.  These would not be needed at every beltway intersection, but properly spaced around the beltway they could significantly help control speed without the costs and hassles of full traffic lights.

• Roadway camera monitors at key access and egress to the beltway (Eastern, Volunteer, Centennial, etc.) so images of vehicles and times could be recovered.  This would allow for recovery of vehicle info when there are hit and run and crime incidents where there is a need to try and identify violators coming/going from/to anywhere, and using the beltway to exit the area.  Since this is a fairly closed loop, these camera could help the police identify such criminal violations as the truck that took out the info center building, as well as vehicles suspected of other crimes (including hit-and-run of SCA residents) within the Anthem area.  Such cameras would just be an extension of the system that already exists along Eastern.

• Other possible flow control and crime prevention components to be proposed in the future.  A professional traffic engineer could significantly help SCA propose something that we can support without running the risk of proposing something that would be impractical.

Bob Frank

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | No Comments »

June 8, 2008 by admin.

Check out Director Bob Frank’s most recent posting on this topic at:

http://www.anthemvoice.org

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | No Comments »

June 7, 2008 by tim_stebbins.

Some current and former board members seem to be conspiring to commercialize at least some and potentially most of our recreational facilities. The objective seems to be the creation of a for-profit business enterprise in place of our wonderful active adult community. See this recent email: roz_berman_statement.pdf

Various recreational facilities would be leased to outside business operations so they could run them in any way they deem fit. This could mean opening virtually all of our recreational facilities to the general public of all ages for their use at will. All users would be charged fees for use. Would Sun City Anthem members get a discount? Perhaps, but no guarantees.

If these conspirators have their way members would lose control of our lifestyle. Members would lose control of our buildings. Members would lose control of the Anthem Center. Members would lose control of the Independence Center. Members would lose control of Rec. Center 3 even before it is completed. They could all become public facilities just like any other commercial business on the Strip or elsewhere in Las Vegas.

What might be on the table? Commercial lease of our Fitness Center and Indoor Track in the Anthem Center. This could become a public membership exercise facility just like the Las Vegas Athletic Club on Eastern Avenue and the I-215. Our Pools and Jacuzzi might be included too. Commercial lease of our Tennis Courts. These could become a public tennis club just like other USTA facilities. Commercial lease of our Freedom Hall Theater in the Independence Center. This could become just like any other public theater with shows such as Las Vegas style burlesque and strip performances, children’s dance and musical recitals, - you name it. All open to the public including tourists from the Strip. Commercial lease of the Delaware Room and other meeting rooms in the Anthem Center, Independence Center and Rec. 3. The lessee could rent them to anybody for any kind of meeting, conference, religious service or commercial endeavor. Here too completely open to the public. Contract Public Gaming in the Anthem Center. This could be slot and video machines in the restaurant and bar area with potential evolution to table games in the Gallery area. The list can go on and on.

There might be some benefits, at least in the eyes of the conspirators. Wildly optimistic financial projections have been voiced as a means to stabilize our dues. In reality very modest profits, if any, would likely be eaten up by the costs for personnel, administration and security to over-see and manage all of these leases.

We all paid for our recreational facilities as part of the price for our homes. We all bought a lifestyle appropriate for this time of our lives. We might be able to keep our Senior Community status for our private homes but we would certainly lose it for our common areas and recreational facilities should these plans proceed.

The groundwork is being started. At least one director has stated any lifestyle promises made to homebuyers that are inconvenient to commercialization of our recreational facilities will be rejected or ignored. If we have any gripes that is too bad and we should contact the developer to seek recourse.

Do these prospects scare you? They certainly scare the wits out to this reporter. Maybe we should read Faust again.

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Other | Print | 2 Comments »

June 6, 2008 by tim_stebbins.

The title is a direct quote from our governing documents.  This is one of many promises to all of us assuring the lifestyle we chose when we elected to live here.  These are our rights, if you will, guaranteed by those governing documents. 

Here are some additional promises and guarantees to you, me and all other residents of Sun City Anthem contained in our governing documents. 

“Sun City Anthem is very special in that it is a private, restricted membership community catering to adult and senior citizens.”  

“Proof of residency within Sun City Anthem is required to obtain a Membership Card.”  

“Guests or visitors are accommodated only when such accommodation does not infringe upon the convenience or right of enjoyment of members.”  

“while every effort is made to provide comfortable use of the Association facilities by all members and guests, the facilities are not intended to serve the general public” 

We now seem to see blatant plans by at least some of our board members to ignore these promises, to disregard our rights.  They seem to indicate they want to severely limit or even eliminate some of the lifestyle advantages we all paid for. 

It appears that with flowery words and smiling faces at least some of our board members might to try to assure us on the one hand they are protecting our lifestyle and us while they eradicate our rights with the other hand.  Elimination of resident rights, one here, another there, and who knows, one day we may have lost them all. 

It is like the frog in the pot of cool water placed over a fire.  As the water heats up the frog does not realize what is happening to it.  But in the end the frog is dead.

Posted in Community Affairs, Lifestyle, News! | Print | 3 Comments »

June 5, 2008 by admin.

Ron Johnson offers a somewhat different viewpoint on SCA Community Affairs. His latest editorial is
posted below.

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Other | Print | No Comments »

June 2, 2008 by admin.

Director Frank has posted some comments about the issues relating to construction defects and asked for community support in seeking a solution.

See www.anthemvoice.org for details.

Posted in Other | Print | 4 Comments »

June 2, 2008 by Norman McCullough.

May 27, 2008

On May 30, 2005 a deficit of $298,181 existed in the reserves. This deficit was reduced by $85,166 the next day to $213,015. According to the accounting records some time in May 0f 2007 the deficit of $213,015 was reduced by $66,936 resulting in a $146,079 deficit that still remains and is proven by the End of year reserve figure of $209,297 vs the fully funded number in the 2006 reserve study $355,376.

The numbers still do not add up right. Why is this matter still unresolved?

Norman McCullough
Villas Representative

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | No Comments »