Archive for October 2008

Pet Park Future?

October 28, 2008 by bobfrank.

ALAN HARALDSON said on the SCA-HOA Message Board:

“How about a dog park in the area where that church wanted to be put up last year. was that around the airport somewhere?”

And, I responded with the following:
“Alan, thank you for bringing us full circle on this pet park issue.

Last Fall, as part of my work as the lead SCA Director opposing the proposed church school on Volunteer, I proposed that the parcel would be better used as a combination Henderson Pet Park/Memorial Wall and Senior Walking Park. Here is a link to my 2007 illustration.
http://www.anthemvoice.org/petpark.html

I went so far as to discuss it with the City Parks Department Manager and City Councilman Andy Hafen. They both liked the idea and said the best way to get such an idea moving would be for a community project to propose the idea. I suggested it to the SCA Pet Club, and they were also favorably inclined, but reminded me that there was already a pet park as part of the Rec. Ctr. 3 design, so the idea did not get going last year. Perhaps some of the pet club members might want to re-visit the proposal? Although the City budget is not likely able to build the park in the short-run, the first step would be to get the City to obtain the land from BLM for the suggested purpose.

Clearly, if a large number of residents really want a pet park in the neighborhood, this proposed location has a lot of positive benefits–not the least being that it would not cost SCA anything to construct or maintain it for the lifetime of the park. The idea also has the benefit of getting the City to turn that desert area adjoining SCA on the West side into an attractive senior walking and pet park.

What if a SCA member project leader could volunteer and pull together a team to turn this concept into reality? I would be happy to actively support the effort if a volunteer leader emerges.”

Bob Frank, SCA Director, bobfrank@cox.net

Reference File: pet_park_proposal.pdf

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

RMI Questioned on $84,000 Light Project

October 27, 2008 by admin.

Pinnacle resident Sonny Sonnenfeld has formally challenged the accuracy and business judgment of Terry DaSilva and Bruno Panek in RMI’s $84,000 “upgrade” to the Anthem Center lighting system.

See this letter for details: sonny_lutron_ltr.pdf

Note that this very expensive/questionable project was quickly slipped through the board approval process by RMI with very little public exposure to the stated requirements and costs.

And, in spite of Mr. Sonnefeld’s industry expertise, and his careful analysis and research, RMI appears to be ignoring the stated concerns about the over-pricing and element definitions of the “deal”.

The answers to Mr. Sonnenfeld’s questions must be provided now–before the CAM makes very serious contract mistakes. It could be very embarassing, or worse, if Sonny is shown to be right, and nothing was done before it was too late.

If Sonny is right, and he certainly makes a compelling case for his position, we would be wasting tens of thousands of dollars on this project. That is intolerable.

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

Invasion By California Door-Knockers?

October 22, 2008 by THE VOICE.

(The following posting has been revised based on information learned from Rich Miller at the SCA board meeting on Thursday, October 23.)

Rich Miller, President of SCA’s Democratic Party Special Interest Group (SIG), announced at the October 22 SIG meeting in the Anthem Center that he was sponsoring a party for a group of California seniors coming from the Los Angles area to perform door-knocking programs in support of Democratic Party Candidates at the federal, state and local levels.

At the Thursday board meeting, Rich Miller denied that individuals would be soliciting in the SCA community, and claimed this program was sponsored by the NV Democratic Party–not by the SCA SIG. However, individuals from LA soliciting support for the Democratic Party have been reported to be calling on SCA residents in the Shadow Canyon Village area. Rich did not report on how long the California seniors would be working in NV area, where they would be staying, if they were volunteers, or if they were being compensated or reimbursed by the Democratic Party in any way.

However, we remain concerned about the program that imports out-of-state political activists into NV communities to solicit party support on a door-to-door basis. Perhaps they are having trouble getting enough NV Democrats to volunteer to do the job? Without saying anything to the contrary, paid workers could be pretending to be fellow residents and attempting to influence your votes–while behaving as if they were your neighbors. We object to that idea–no matter who might be doing it.

It also makes one wonder about the possible security or safety problems that out-of-state “political” workers might cause as they go door-to-door in SCA? How does one validate individuals involved in such activity, and would those who hired them be liable for any criminal problems that might be later traced to individuals involved?

THE VOICE

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

Let’s Make a Deal

October 20, 2008 by tim_stebbins.

Our board has used its business judgment to make a deal with the developer concerning Rec. Center #3. The board decided the deal is in the best interests of Sun City Anthem. I would like to take advantage of their business judgment too.

Here is my proposed agreement:

The Association gives me $1,375,000. I get to keep this money for three and a half years with no obligations what so ever. After three and a half years I agree to give the Association $191,190. A year or so later I agree to begin paying a portion of the electric and gas utilities bills for Rec. Center #3 and continue such payments for the useful life of the original “Greening” features included in Rec. Center #3.

The Association will begin saving money immediately upon the initializing of the payments by me. I agree to establish a trust account to assure such payments continue if I do not survive the useful life of the original “Greening” elements included in Rec. Center #3.

I think this is a pretty sweet deal for me. It is the same deal the board made with the developer. If it is good business for the Association to make this deal with the developer it should be an equally good business to make this deal with me.

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

Check Your Plumbing

October 10, 2008 by Mark Cook.

Do you have a hot water recirculation pump in your home? Is it made of yellow brass? If so, are you concerned about how long it will last? This photograph shows the inside of a recirculation pump, from a home in Sun City Anthem, that has been in service less than 3 years. This is classic dezincification:

Posted in Other | Print | 3 Comments »

Why Bother?

October 9, 2008 by bobfrank.

Some have asked, why did I bother to raise the questions about possible fraud concerning the co-gen and RecCtr 3
matters when the majority of the board and our law firm had 100% control of the outcome? It was a done deal/losing proposition beforehand, what is the use of taking the time to (once again) challenge the misconduct?

In executive sessions and private conversations, I have been strongly pushing for over a year to find the way to require that Pulte honor its contracts and pay its bills. That especially includes (but is not limited to) getting on with building
RecCtr 3. But, at what life-cycle costs to the members of this 7,144 association? Why should the board grant yet another cash benefit of another million dollars or so to Pulte when all it does is rip us off–time and time again?

The basic question is, are we really a victim without any leverage–as our attorney said at the meeting? We must not agree. Even though it was an obvious losing situation, my duty was to inform SCA homeowners of the facts, so that at least there might be some chance for future accountability by Pulte and/or by misbehaving board members.

I am certain that an “effective” negotiation team could have obtained at least SOME consideration from Pulte–even if it was only a performance bond to back up its promises in this time of possible bankruptcy by builders. But, due to what I consider to be incompetence by our board majority and our association law firm, we received nothing but Pulte’s lame promises to honor its contracts. We are getting nothing of meaningful value for releasing our $1.375 million, and for forgiving the two years of Pulte delays in constructing the 3rd RecCtr.

As we have seen time and time again since May 2005, the SCA board majority accepted a “take in or leave it” proposal from Pulte. Shame on our Board majority, the board law firm, and the CAM for such a miserable performance! Is it any wonder that many homeowners feel like we have been raped by Pulte and our elected representatives?

In the negative economic future we face, we can be sure that some members will be extremely upset when they finally realize how they will have to make up for all of these sweetheart deals and wasted funds from their own wallets. But, by then, it will be too late.

So, even if a few members complain and call me the “rogue”, I am obligated to continue to demand better performance from fellow board members, and so should you. After all, it is YOUR money they are wasting. As they say, a million here, a million there, and soon we have some serious money issues. And, by the way, constantly calling me the “rogue” or maverick board member is a badge of honor. I am just faithfully respecting my promises to members, and following the money.

Finally, if SCA was a normal corporation where the board was accountable to the homeowners, you might now be removing the
failed board members, along with the failed law firm, and demanding to have a new, competent team to represent your interests. But, that is not the case in a HOA. So, until you elect a majority of directors who truly honor their promises to represent homeowners interests, the misbehavior will continue. We will continue to receive more of what we tolerate.

Bob Frank
SCA Director

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

Questions About Co-Gen & RecCtr 3 for Board Meeting

October 6, 2008 by bobfrank.

Some nagging, unanswered questions about the Co-Generation Plant fiasco and related 3rd Recreation Center Construction delays and costs are listed below for you to ponder and consider asking during the board meeting on 1:30 PM on Tuesday, October 7 in Freedom Hall. This will be a turning point in the history of Sun City Anthem.

Since Pulte collected over $25 million by selling SCA’s golf courses in 2002 and shared nothing with SCA, and since Pulte saved over $10 million in cash by not building the 3rd golf course, and since Pulte profited by over $100 million by building the homes in Shadow Canyon and Desert Sky on FAR smaller lots than elsewhere in SCA, and since the Master Plan forces Pulte to build RecCtr 3, why should the board agree to allowing Pulte to charge the members for the greening features? Why shouldn’t the current design costs, including “greening” features, be within Pulte’s $10 million budget, and Pulte pay SCA the $1.4 million plus interest?
Why are we doing this “greening”? There is no guarantee the delivered prices will be same as quoted on such state-of-the-art technologies in a period when demand for the “green” components is likely to be much higher than expected. And, there can be no guarantee that the return on investment will ever be achieved. When considering the previous 2-year delays in construction, the extremely high risks of more schedule delays due to technology issues, and Pulte’s high benefits by not having to pay the co-gen money and interest for the past 3 years, why should Pulte be allowed to charge extra for the greening? Is that not a double or even triple charging the Shadow Canyon and Desert Sky homeowners? And, why should Pulte not be required to build and complete on schedule without extorting compliance to that unfair settlement agreement?
Why shouldn’t the relatively small additive costs of greening be absorbed by Pulte considering all that is has gained and its two year construction delays? The higher unit prices, smaller lot sizes, and higher density of homes built in Shadow Canyon and Desert Sky have caused members in those villages to have already paid for RecCtr 3. Why should they have to pay again by giving up the co-gen funds and releasing Pulte from all obligations–before the building is even finished? Pulte failed miserably on the standards for RecCtr 2. Who believes that Pulte will complete RecCtr 3 on schedule in 2010, and finish it up to the promised standards? Particularly if they already have a release that blocks the board from having any real leverage over it.
Would it not be fraudulent for the board to agree to this “settlement” that lets Pulte off the hook forever for the above liabilities? Even if one wanted to consider such a sweetheart deal, why would you consider it before the company has finished the building? Is this not the worst example of “negotiation” you have ever seen? See why the situation raises thoughts of extortion, bribery and corruption? It simply does not make sense.
How could the 2005 board members Favil West, David Berman, Bob Berman, Bob Sansing, Lyndal Ruiz, and David Weil allow Dea McDonald and Pulte to get away with not paying the $1.4 million Co-Generation funds in 2005? And, even when they struck such a bad deal, why did they not execute a written amendment for the changes?
Were there any SCA benefits received in return for the big cash savings to Pulte? Was that deal a sign of stupidity or corruption? Who among the board and CAM, if any, voiced any disagreement with the deal? How could the previous verbal and otherwise informal deals be considered valid when the “contracts” did not include “consideration” for the SCA members?
Why would anyone consider allowing $1.4 million of cash to be used sometime in the future for “greening” a senior center facility when many users would never live to benefit from the hoped-for savings? Did the 2005 board even ask for an economic analysis when they offered their illegal handshake agreement to defer payment? What possible explanation other than corruption could one formulate?
How much money has Pulte saved in the 3rd rec ctr building construction by using green materials instead of normal materials in the building? Does anyone know the truth? There are numbers floating around from Pulte, but we should not accept them without detailed validation. We are talking about really expensive components for a one-of-a-kind, very high-risk facility that is a true research and development project. It will be the first of is kind in a HOA in Nevada and maybe the first in the Nation.
And, by the way, what is a senior community doing sponsoring a high technology, advanced research and development construction program? Would that even be a good thing for something as esoteric as enhanced property values when it is clear that the cost-benefit ratio is uncertain and it is unlikely to produce significant value compared to the cash value of the $1.4 million in the reserves with the resulting dues reductions? How does a practical person make sense out of this whole deal?
Due to the above history of gross misconduct by Pulte and SCA boards and RMI that allowed such a series of fraudulent actions against the SCA homeowners, what risks of legal actions against the board and Pulte will there be that cause high risks to the construction schedule? Could rushing into making a bad deal to appease Pulte result in causing much greater problems, litigation costs, and construction delays over the next two years? What is the smart path to follow on October 7, 2008?

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | 3 Comments »

Board Wastes More Money

October 6, 2008 by admin.

Thanks to the perseverance and tenacity by some of our fellow homeowners (and lately, one particularly persistent individual) the facts of more board shenanigans has come to light for all to see.

In 2006 there was a desire to install industrial quality steel shelving in one of our buildings for storage purposes. The price was estimated at something over $10,000. A quote was obtained from a local vendor:

Total price of shelving         $10,552.32
Sales Tax                               817.80
Installation Labor                     960.00

Total Price $12,330.12

An idea emerged. Over $800 could be saved by not paying the sales tax. Having the Minuteman Foundation (MMF) buy the shelving could do this since they are not taxable. They could in turn sell the shelving back to us tax-free because they are a charitable organization. For their cooperation in this scheme the Minuteman Foundation would be allowed to use some of the shelving space at no charge. Such a deal, everybody wins
The Minuteman Foundation purchased the shelving and had it installed as follows:

Total price of shelving        $10,552.32
Sales Tax                             0.00
Installation Labor                     960.00

Total Price $11,512.32

Apparently the Minuteman Foundation Officers felt they deserved more consideration for their participation in this scheme than simply free use of SCA property. The same people (West and Berman while wearing two different hats for the two different corporations) would charge SCA more than the shelving actually cost to realize a profit for the Minuteman Foundation.

How much did they charge you might ask? On behalf of MMF, Favil West and Bob Berman charged SCA $16,700. That is a huge 45% markup for acting as a middleman - plus those same officers still insist on the free use of the shelves now belonging to SCA.

So, the SCA officers, two of whom were also Officers and Trustees of the Minutemen Foundation, thought this was just fine, and “donated” $16,700 to the Minuteman Foundation! But, imagine this, the SCA Officers (West, Berman, Dwyer and Berg) did not even bother to get the transaction on the agenda and approved by a board vote–as required by the law! Why were they hiding such a large amount? Perhaps they knew that the amount and purpose (donation) and the self-dealing was not legal?

Let us review this action by the board:

1. We could have purchased the shelves for $12,330.12.

2. Instead, the 2006 SCA Officers (with the same individuals serving as President and Vice President of both corporations) decided to pay Minuteman Foundation $16,700 for the shelves.

The 2006 board officers paid almost $4,400 more for the shelves than was necessary and almost $4,400 more than they are worth. That was our dues money they wasted. All the while claiming to be saving the sales tax of over $800. Can you believe that kind of judgment?

Now, consider this case while you evaluate the competence, honesty and integrity of most of our past and present SCA directors. Mull this over when you think about the honesty and integrity of the Minuteman Foundation officers. We each have to act as we see fit, but many will remember this case the next time the Minuteman Foundation leadership comes with its hand out.

It is very difficult to uncover facts in matters like this. There has been an uncooperative attitude by the Board and the Community Manager that has taken our fellow homeowners over a year to finally get to the facts.

But, we also have to wonder how much more money has been wasted or is missing? Some say millions appear to have been lost or wasted. How could those of us who pay the bills find out the truth?

In the meantime, the board majority is refusing to allow all the financial facts of past years to come out. Last year the board raised the dues by $160, and a few months later cut it by $100. Do they really know what they are doing? Imagine the wasted thousands of dollars of just changing the collection procedures and by having to reconcile the 7,000+ accounts!

Months before that, we found out the board had improperly retained over $3.7 million in surplus dues for the past few years–in spite of fact that all bills had been paid, and all reserves had been funded to over 90%. We are talking about truly excessive dues collections! And, then they even raised the 2007 dues above the previously excessive levels. How could that be justified?

The excuses given? They said it is not easy to know exactly how much is needed each year, so it is better to ask for too much than to run short. While it can make sense to have an operating fund of a hundred thousand or two to support the year end carry over supporting an annual budget of $8 Million, but accumulating $3.7 million in surplus to all known needs–outrageous!

Such surpluses are required by law to be credited to the homeowners against future assessments or to pay federal income tax on the retained surplus. But, they refuse to do either one. Instead, they are hoping to not be audited by the IRS while they are struggling to find ways to spend all of that surplus and ignoring the requirement to spend the money wisely. Amazing attitudes. Whose money do they think they are handling? Do they remind you of the members of Congress?

It should be clear that SCA members must demand there be a forensic audit by a truly independent source to find out the whole truth, and to make our membership comfortable with our financial foundation for the future. We want to pay the dues needed to maintain our community property at a high level of excellence, but no more. We want to avoid nasty surprises like we are seeing on the national levels.

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | 5 Comments »

Where’s The Beef?

October 5, 2008 by bobfrank.

In the hateful style that is typical of our resident SCA Jekyll & Hyde personality, the berman bog has once again launched a vicious personal attack on me in today’s issue. In this case, the author has edited out significant parts (the beef) of the email exchange. So, I have provided both items for your convenience and understanding of how he operates.

msg_to_roz_4oct08.pdf
berman_bog_5oct08.pdf

On this beautiful Fall Sunday in this wonderful community, I sincerely wish that I did not have to write such correspondence and to press so hard in the public for financial accountability. But, after over a year of struggling behind the board’s closed doors to be polite and professional, I am forced to go public and state the unpleasant facts. I made honorable commitments to serve this community’s interests and to work on cleaning up the board corruption and mismanagement. I will continue to do so, to the best of my abilities.

Unfortunately, the recent pet park issue has surfaced many other critical items that have been boiling under the surface as we build this year’s budget and attempt to deal with that 800-pound gorilla we call Pulte. Everywhere you look, business matters for this community are in disarray and not improving.

And, like all business management problems, until the problems are clearly understood by both the board and the members, truly effective solutions can not be implemented. We will only get a band aid approach that could lead to a future financial meltdown.

Ignoring the obvious problems today is a recipe for following the national financial disaster that is still playing out. The difference is that only the SCA members can bailout the misconduct of the SCA Directors. Members can not afford to remain ignorant of the fundamental financial issues at stake as we move towards finalizing this year’s budget. This is a critical milestone year at both the local and national levels.

For example, exactly how much does Pulte owe SCA? NO ONE KNOWS!

Is it only $600,000 or is it over $3,000,000? Would you agree that is a BIG difference? And please note that the extended dispute over financial matters is not a question of IF Pulte owes SCA–it is a question of how much, how are we going to collect it, and when? Your boards have failed to aggressively collect those significant funds from Pulte since transition in May of 2005. Note that the statute of limitations is also in play and we are losing critical time!

What a sweet deal for Pulte! Why has this happened? And, why has it been allowed to be continued to current date? As a board member, I can not accept the unbelievable excuses I have received. You should join my skepticism and help me push for an investigative audit.

One thing we can be sure of, SCA will never get a dime from that giant Pulte corporation, who is currently short of cash–if we do not ask. And, when we finally do ask, we better have the results of an independent, forensic audit to back up our demands. Otherwise, we will waste a lot of time and money on lawyers and ultimately, fail to gain any significant results.

Meanwhile, some members of current and past boards and finance committees take great offense at my talking about financial problems and the urgent need for a forensic audit. But, instead of attacking me for asking questions, they should be the first to join my efforts to clear up the nagging issues from 2004 to 2007 and help prepare to require Pulte to pay what it owes, and avoid SCA members having to subsidize Pulte’s failures to pay its obligations.

Finally, we know we have widespread resident apathy in SCA, and that is typical of homeowner associations–especially senior communities. But, just as we have seen on the national scene with the gross abuses of the federal financial management systems, it is the members/citizens who ultimately have to shoulder the burden of solving the problems. The question is, are we smart enough in SCA to get ahead of the future problems by doing what is needed today?

In summary, the community must require there be a forensic audit by an outside, trusted source. If the board continues to refuse to do what is required, the community will have to implement the provisions in Nevada Statutes and SCA CC&Rs that allow the members to force the board to take a certain action. This would be an initiative/petition for a special membership vote that is sponsored by at least 10% of the homeowners. In spite of what you might hear, there ARE ways to for the members to be heard more often than once a year at board election time. I will be posting some information on how that process works in the near future.

Meanwhile, it is clear there can not be peace and harmony in this community until the serious questions about our finances and taxes are settled in the open. Promises to ignore the past problems are a recipe for future disaster. You deserve much better leadership than that, and I suggest you not tolerate those who advocate such policies.

Bob Frank
SCA Director

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

Lesson Learned From Pet Park Initiative?

October 3, 2008 by admin.

This item was posted today on the SCA-HOA Message Board by Director Frank:

“Congratulations to the members of Shadow Canyon Village for conclusively demonstrating that SCA members do not have to tolerate misconduct by Board Members. Members now see they have the power to influence the policy decisions in this community–when sufficient numbers of members refuse to be intimidated or deceived.Members should also be able to observe from this activity that ‘the board’ is not fully informed on the facts of all matters placed on the agenda by the board president, and it is commonplace for little or no staffing being completed by the CAM staff before a board decision is requested.

If something you see placed on the board agenda does not appear to make sense, you are right to be asking detailed questions, and requiring complete answers.In addition, when a frustrated member complains about not knowing about what is going on, you are often told you should have gone to the extreme measure to attend all prior committee meetings, and to go to the business office during the week of the board meeting and demanded to see the 1 copy of the board book that is supposed to be available for all 7,144 members. The ‘Board Book’ is not put online for member convenience because most board members believe it would be too much trouble, and some board members believe you do not have the right to the detailed information.

Other board members believe you have no right to participate in most board agenda items PRIOR to the board’s decisions. The statutes provide for members having the right to participate; but, if you can not find out the details on the issues, and if you do not have time to analyze the pros and cons well before the board meeting, you are effectively blocked from participating. And, even on those rare occasions when member comments are announced as being allowed during the item deliberation period during board meetings, that exclusive and late provision effectively prohibits the thousands of members who can not attend the board meeting from having a voice. I strongly believe this is fundamentally wrong and unfair to the majority of SCA members.

I have argued (with little success) for over a year that the board should be polling residents about pending decisions and policy matters every month with a survey inserted into the Spirit Magazine and on the SCA website. Voting would require the member numbers and duplicates eliminated using those numbers. The costs would be trivial and the benefits would be enormous. Allowing members to actively participate in our governance will stimulate members to have more confidence that their elected board members are serving the SCA members interests–and not favoring developer, CAM or personal interests.

If you agree with this idea of monthly surveys via the Spirit and the SCA website, please help me by sending an eform to all board members.

Bob Frank
SCA Director”

bobfrank@cox.net