November 30, 2008 by Norman McCullough.

Attention all Villa home owners in Sun City Anthem. Please refer to the article in today’s Las Vegas Review Journal - Page 4D titled ;

Posted in Other | Print | 1 Comment »

November 27, 2008 by Norman McCullough.

Ron Johnson is another BLOG owner who has many times demonstrated his concern for the residents of Sun City Anthem. He is a quiet gentleman who doesn’t meddle in the political affairs of the community, but prefers instead to present the facts to the community, and let them sort it all out them selves. Today on Thanks Giving Day I would like to offer this “Thank You” to Ron.

——————————————–

Ron I want to offer my thanks for your excellent article about the premature failure of the flat roofs many of our phase one residents have on their homes. I have seen first hand the damage that can result when this type of roof fails to drain properly.

The Villa homes all have this type of roof. Right now the replacement cost is $934.50 per Villa. We have a rather small roof area (15’ x 14’). The current cost of the composition roll material is $4.45 psf. From what I understand, some of the single family homes in phase 1 had larger patio areas.

I also want to commend you for publishing the article about the groundless allegations against board member Bob Frank that were made by Mike Dixon. I would really like to know just how much money this whole unnecessary episode has cost the residents of this community.

In my opinion, Mike Dixon has not only caused financial harm to the members of this community, he has sewed the seeds of discontent that are now in blossom in our community. I think it’s time for the majority of the board members who voted to remove Bob Frank from his position of Vice President and Mike Dixon to admit the whole episode was nothing more than a political ploy. Perhaps some resignations?

I’ve noticed there has been NO comment about the Review Journal Article from your counterpart (The eighth board member). After all his slime attacks, one might think at least an apology might be offered, but that might be too much to expect from the husband of our board president considering his past accomplishments.

At any rate Mr. Johnson, thank you for your service to our wonderful community. You were instrumental in guiding us through the Kytec disaster, and have all ways been willing to report the truth without resorting to the type of political mud throwing that is so disruptive and insensitive. You are a credit to our community, and today I salute you.

Posted in Other | Print | 1 Comment »

November 21, 2008 by bobfrank.

THE FOLLOWING EMAIL HAS BEEN SENT TO MANY SCA MEMBERS:

——–

For All,

I strongly support Shadow Canyon Village resident Forrest Fetherhof’s project work to stop the plans to construct Anthem East Trail enhancements near or in Sun City Anthem.  The City must not be encouraged to encroach upon SCA members’ quiet enjoyment and safety of their senior lives and property by building facilities and by promoting broad public access and egress to the Anthem East Trails through Sun City Anthem.  As shown in the below web links, I have consistently opposed and voted against the granting of the easement and construction of trailhead and trail enhancements near and on the Sun City Anthem community. 

In addition, I believe it can be shown that SCA members have the right to discourage routine public transiting, recreation, trespassing and parking in our senior community.  We do not have to be a gated community to exercise those kinds of rights.  In other words, I believe that public use of the Anthem East Trail system through Sun City Anthem can be/must be systematically discouraged in all types of publications, signs at all Anthem East trailhead sites, and via all types of related web sites.

I also believe the previous board decision to grant the easement can be reversed on legal as well as a common sense basis.  The board vote to grant the easements could be found to be an illegal (ultra virus) act that failed to follow due process and subsequently be reversed.  The affected residents in Shadow Canyon, Desert Sky and Black Mountain Villages (over 2,000 SCA members) were not allowed to individually vote on this vital property rights issue.  That was wrong.  The record shows that 5 directors, (President Mike Dixon, VP Roz Berman and Directors Barry Friedman, Lanie Berg and Kay Dwyer) could be charged by affected village residents with violating Nevada Administrative Code 116.405 (a negligent action that served their self-interests).  If found guilty, those directors could be sanctioned and possibly removed by the Nevada Real Estate Division for such misconduct.

In conclusion, I believe the Henderson City Council is likely to respond favorably to a large petition to reverse the easement–once the Council is fully aware of the massive opposition to the trail enhancements in and near Sun City Anthem.  The next step is in the hands of the residents of the 3 most-affected villages.  Please advise if I can be of any further assistance.

Bob Frank
Sun City Anthem Director
Black Mountain Village Resident
bobfrank@cox.net

2007 & 2008 Anthem VOICE articles & statements opposing trail and trailhead enhancements near and on Sun City Anthem properties:
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/11/06/petition-against-the-trail/
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/04/17/breaking-news-on-trailhead-issue/
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/01/23/trailhead-issue-status/
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/01/17/to-speak-or-not/
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/01/17/update-on-trailhead-issue/
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/__oneclick_uploads/2008/01/email_to_mary_ellen_donner.pdf
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/01/06/hiking-club-member-opposes-trailheads/
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/01/04/hiking-trail-up-date/
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2007/12/08/trailhead-nrs-hush/
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2007/12/02/december-4-bod-meeting/
Forrest Fetherolf wrote:

FYI……………..Shadow Canyon Drive trailhead is becoming a national tourist attraction.  The more people that know, the more people there are to commit crimes and disrupt our community; ask your neighbors that lives next to the trailhead and were burglarized 11/18/08 around 2 PM.  That is the 4th burglary in Shadow Canyon since August 08.  Shadow Canyon ranks 3rd in SCA crime following Black Mountain and Desert Sky.

http://www.trails.com/trail_reviews.aspx?trailid=HGS502-092

All those with concerns might give our Board members a call or email and express your opinions.  I asked all the Board members at the town hall meeting last week………..”We ask the Board of Directors to take action with our residents to have Parks and Recreation Department and other agencies reconsider the placement of the trail not allowing public trail ingress and egress from Shadow Canyon Village or any other SCA village.”

The Anthem East Trailhead #4-20 is currently out for bid, when approved by Henderson City Council it could be built within a few months.

I invite everyone to have your voice be heard as you did with the pet park.

Forrest

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | 21 Comments »

November 20, 2008 by admin.

Here are Shirley Cheri’s proposed lease terms and conditions for Trumpets.  This document was found on the SCA website and copied here for reader convenience.

Your comments and opinions are welcomed at the Board Meetings on November 20 and December 5 and via this blog.  For example (list revised @ 7:45 AM on November 20):

• Do you feel $6,500 per month rent, 8% of gross monthly revenue, and utilities to be high, low or reasonable for this market?
• Are you aware that excess revenues received above our association costs will be taxable, and the lessee will have to generate the excess profits through undesirable higher food and service prices?
• Who should pay the $35,000 annual Henderson property taxes required due to allowing public access to the Anthem Center facilities?
• Should lessee be asked to offer limited “gourmet group” menus and services at higher prices on special days in a designated area–if desired and patronized by SCA members and the public?
• Do you believe that SCA and its clubs & SIGs should be able to reserve rooms 18 months ahead to have an advantage over the lessee’s 12 month reservation window?
• Should lessee provide food and beverage services for all SCA premises–including the future Rec Ctr 3?
• Should food service , bar and entertainment operations be routinely allowed to go until midnight or 1 AM?  If so, which days?  How should security be managed?
• Should SCA members receive a fixed percentage discount (say 20%) off of Trumpets commercial prices on food, beverages and catering?
• Should lessee be required to host a “members/guests-only night” event on a quarterly basis where two-for-one buffet food and drink and free entertainment is served in the restaurant, gallery and pool areas from 6 PM to 10 PM?
• What kinds of SCA-provided/free advertising of Trumpets events/menus in the Spirit and other SCA channels for the benefit/convenience of members should be routinely offered?
• What numbers of minimum special events/participation for members and guests involving food and beverage services should be guaranteed on a quarterly basis by the association?
• What kind of community coordination committee services and customer feedback information should be offered by the association to help promote and motivate high member acceptance and patronage of the new Trumpets?
• Do you agree that the health certificate standard required of the lessee is always “A” and failure to do so is an automatic breech of the lease?
• etc., etc.

Trumpets Lease Terms (proposed as of Nov. 20, 2008)

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

November 16, 2008 by THE VOICE.

Today’s R-J Business Section leads with the headline:  “Home group’s board battles.   Association panel member accused of legal violations…”

Then it goes on to report that the 14-month-long harassment and retaliation by Dixon and the Bermans and other members of the past two Boards have been dismissed.

No merit was found by the Division or the Attorney General in any of the 110 pages of bogus claims made by Mike Dixon and attorney John Leach!

See the web article:  http://www.lvrj.com/business/34543364.html

or in this file copy:  www-lvrj-com_business_frank_cleared.pdf

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

November 6, 2008 by admin.

A post by Forrest Fetherholf on the SCA Message Board is repeated for your convenience:

For all SCA residents (especially Shadow Canyon and Desert Sky)

A petition against the proposed trail in Shadow Canyon will be available starting this Saturday and Sunday at corner of Lewiston and Bensley.

If you don’t want to open up our senior community to a citywide invitation for others to come into our area and jeopardize our safety, security and peaceful community, then you must act now. 

If you don’t speak now and the trail is completed, we will be stuck with the consequences.

Please sign the petition and attend the town hall meeting November 13, 2008 at 10:00 AM.

Volunteers are always welcome to help with the petition.

Forrest Fetherolf

forrest@fetherolfdev.com

702-823-5580

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

November 4, 2008 by sonny.

Mr. and Mrs. Berman:

I have harassed no one.  I have asked the Board of directors ( individually and collectively), Board President Ms. Berman, and the CAM, Terry DaSilva, for information regarding the purchase order given to Valley Crest for Rock replenishment.  And, I have requested copies of all records of the transaction that I am entitled to by law, CC&R’s and by-laws.

These document requests include (1) requests for quotation to each of the three suppliers, (2) copies of quotations (which I have received), (3) copies of all communication between RMI and the three suppliers, (4) copies of the minutes where the P&G and Finance committees approved the expenditure, and (5) all other documents regarding this project/expenditure.

Terry DaSilva has only given to me copies of selected material that she and Board President Berman want me to have. They have not given me all of the information that I, and you (as homeowners) are entitled to have–by law.

Landscaping Company Valley Crest’s price was over two and a half times more them the other two  qualified bidders.  One price was under $29,000, and the other price was under $25,000.  Bruno Panek and others in RMI have tried to explain the wide differences in prices by pointing out the differences in the quantities of rock quoted on.

But, that bid failure would not have happened if the request for quotation had been properly written and distributed.  RMI was guilty of gross mismanagement by not preparing a request for quotation that all bidders understood and were able to bid on.  Good business dictates that kind of process. Bruno Panek in his letter to the P&G Committee states ” I am sure that the two other landscape companies did not go out and inspect every area on the maps provided to them “  How could Mr Panek know that two bidders did not go out and inspect the areas, and that Valley Crest did? (Incidentally there are only four landscape areas involved.)

RMI’s RFQ was flawed.  It was just plain wrong.  The request should have been so clear so that all bidders were clearly bidding on the same thing.  Obviously this was not the case.

The fact that the two low bidders were within 20% of each other and Valley Crest was more then two and a half times more the low bidders should have been a signal to prepare new RFQ documents.  The bids should have been thrown out, and the job re-bid. I  have asked for copies of each of the RFQs that went to the bidders.  I wonder why I cannot get this information?

Dave Berman states that the expenditure for hardscape was budgeted for $121,946 in the reserve fund.  He states that Valley Crest’s price was only $71,706 and that price is under the reserve forecast amount.  What Dave does not say is that the reserve requirement was for seven years.  So, maybe the expenditure should have been limited to $17,944?

While I have not threatened to take my concerns to the Division of Real Estate, I did state that ” I intend to take this matter up with the Ombudsman “, and I have done so.  I did not say that I would take legal action.   However, it might be necessary to do that to protect homeowners funds.

I have not reached out to vendors, filled complaints against them, nor have I threatened them with legal action or filed any complaints against them.  I did contact one vendor on a different matter.  Roz Berman (Board President) wrote to me:  ” You are free to avail yourself of the opportunity to make inquires of (then continued with the name of the company and the phone number).  I did not harass or threaten this vendor.  I wonder how Dave knew about that private letter?

I have also asked to see evidence of the rigorous process, the close reviews, the detailed questions, and the full clarification of  this project by the P&G and Finance Committees.  Saying such business processes have been done do not make it so.  I have asked for this information, and so far, it has been withheld.

At the Board meeting when the expenditure was approved there was no discussion of this project/expenditure.  David says that because I did not attend the P&G and Finance committee meetings (where this expenditure was discussed) I should not be challenging this matter.  Mr. Berman is ridiculous and dead wrong.  The board agenda item and its supporting rationale should stand on its own.  One does not have to attend committee meetings to understand such matters.  And, because something was discussed at a meeting, and agreed, does not mean it was done correctly.  All homeowners have a right to know everything about such a large expenditure.

On another point, readers might like to know that I previously volunteered for the P&G Committee, and I am obligated to continue to try to serve our community.

Since Mr Berman has such complete knowledge of what is happening in SCA perhaps he can tell us exactly how many non-members of the P&G and Finance committees attended the committee meetings where this matter was so thoroughly discussed ? David, can you tell us ?

David Berman also has referred to my age in a highly derogatory way.  I can only say that it appears I have gained more wisdom in my years then he has in his.

In conclusion, I have the right and the obligation to question RMI and the Board of Directors whenever I believe they are wrong.  And, they are obligated by law to provide accurate, timely and respectful responses–even if it requires them to admit they made a mistake.  In the meantime, David Berman has no special rights to condemn, ridicule or denigrate any other member’s honest and sincere behavior.

Sonny Sonnenfeld
Concerned SCA Member
Pinnacle Village

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

November 4, 2008 by THE VOICE.

Using his familiar spinning, deceptive writing style, David Berman has said the following on his bog:

“…a very small number of residents, who often have not participated in the process, have decided that it is appropriate for them to harass the Association with demands to cancel contracts that have been awarded, and in some cases they threaten to take their concerns forward in the form of complaints to the Division of Real Estate and promises of legal action. In addition, they have reached out to some of our vendors, filing complaints against them and threatening them with legal action, despite the fact that these vendors are acting in a completely proper manner.”

“Though I don’t like to single out individual residents for criticism, I must in this case, for a homeowner named Nathan Sonnenfeld, who has issued complaints over several actions taken by the Board and committees, has gone public on a blog administered by Board member Bob Frank with his complaints about the recent selection of a contractor to replace the decorative rock in certain common areas of Sun City Anthem.”

It is interesting that David Berman (as surrogate spokesperson for his blog-silent, board president spouse) considers resident complaints about financial mismanagement to be “harassment”, but the laws specifically encourage challenges to financial management by association members. Member challenges through the State are one of the few available checks against gross misbehavior by board directors and CAM managers involved with our millions of dollars of community resources.

Please note that the Bermans have failed to mention the fact that the law prohibits adverse actions against community members for such challenges. No matter if it is annoying to them to have to provide coherent, detailed answers to member questions, it is part of the responsibilities of the association management.  The Board and CAM are required to provide factual, open, and complete answers to member questions.

But, adverse reactions initiated by directors and CAM managers against homeowners is prohibited.  Such can be punished as being considered “retaliatory” behavior.  Directors can also be severely punished for “acting for reasons of self-interest, gain, prejudice or revenge.”  If found guilty of willful misbehavior, directors and CAM managers can lose their Directors & Officers insurance coverage, and they can be held personally liable.  While this rarely happens, it is possible.

Here is what the law says in NRS 116.31183:

“Retaliatory action prohibited. An executive board, a member of an executive board or an officer, employee or agent of an association shall not take, or direct or encourage another person to take, any retaliatory action against a unit’s owner because the unit’s owner has:

1. Complained in good faith about any alleged violation of any provision of this chapter or the governing documents of the association; or

2. Requested in good faith to review the books, records or other papers of the association.”

And, here is what the law says in NAC 116.405:

“Members of executive board: Prohibited acts. (NRS 116.3103, 116.615) In performing the duties set forth in NRS 116.3103, a member of an executive board shall not:

1. …

2. Act for reasons of self-interest, gain, prejudice or revenge;

3. Commit an act or omission which amounts to incompetence, negligence or gross negligence;”

So, you might now understand why certain board members, and CAM supervisors, are beginning to get very worried over the many well-documented charges of mismanagement (and worse) by Norm McCullough, Sonny Sonnenfeld, Tim Stebbins, Ron Johnson, Dick Arendt, Bob Frank, etc. through the Nevada Real Estate Division. You might also understand why certain past and current directors and finance committee members are so strongly opposing a detailed, investigative/forensic audit. The results from such an audit are highly likely to expose some very embarrassing facts about past mismanagement.  And, the recent financial meltdown by Wall Street and Washington shows that being trained to be a CPA does not say anything about a person’s business judgment.

Naturally, if none of the allegations are valid, the certain individuals could dismiss them as just so much flailing about by ignorant, senile residents. But, if any of the individuals are found guilty of the charges, certain individuals could be dismissed from their positions, and the association may have to pay fines to the State.  In addition, any directors who have knowingly participated in cover ups of mismanagement could also be sanctioned.

So, you might consider the outrageous counter-charges of “harassment” by the board and CAM as being illegal threats by a few desperate individuals who are worried about what an investigative audit will disclose.

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules | Print | No Comments »

November 3, 2008 by Norman McCullough.

In 2007 when the Board of Directors told us they had to raise our neighborhoods assessments by $500 because the cost of paint had climbed from $0.90 sf to $1.57 sf (74% higher), we naturally objected.

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

November 1, 2008 by sonny.

At the Sept 25, 2008 Board Meeting the SCA Directors approved RMI’s recommendation to proceed to place an order to Valley Crest Landscaping Co.  for rock replenishment in our common areas for $71,706.

This was despite the fact that RMI had two lower bids from qualified suppliers. One from Cedco for  $28,975 and one from High Desert for $24,050.  I have been questioning RMI on why it asked the Board to pay Valley Crest 2.5 times more then the other two qualified companies?  And, I am not receiving satisfactory answers.

RMI’s Bruno Panek told SCA’s Property & Grounds Committee he was sure that the other two landscape companies did not go and inspect every area on the map provided to them.  But, no evidence has been shown that anyone knew Cedco and High Desert did not inspect every area on the map provided to them.  And, I doubt anyone has evidence of Valley Crest inspecting all of the areas for this contract.

Regardless, if Mr. Panek had conversations and provided information to one bidder about the bid criteria, he is required to be able to show that he provided the same information on a timely basis to the other bidders.  Otherwise, it is an invalid competition and the bid  prices are wrong.

Incidentally, there are only four SCA community areas  involved, and it would have been easy to treat all bidders equally.  By law and by contract, it is RMI’s responsibility to ensure that all bidders have the same information on which to base their bids.

In addition, I was taught in business that when bids come in with great discrepancies, you call all the bidders, and find out why, and then you allow bidders to revise their bids based on common information.  You do not award a contract to a bidder when you can see there is something wrong.   RMI failed to take that step in this case.

During my investigation of this matter in recent weeks, I have asked RMI Community Association Manager Terry DaSilva and SCA Board President Roz Berman for copies of all information regarding this transaction.  But, either the required documents do not exist, or they have failed to give me everything that is required for this case. Either way, not having, or denying to release such official contracting records is a clear violation of Nevada Statutes and SCA governing documents.

At this point, it appears that RMI is guilty of gross negligence and mis-management on this contract.  And, I believe the SCA Directors have both violated their fiduciary responsibilities and failed to exercise good business judgment. If records to prove otherwise are not immediately produced, I will be forced to file a formal complaint with the Nevada Real Estate Division and request severe punishments of both the SCA Board Officers and the RMI Managers.

In the meantime, I am asking fellow SCA members to help me by looking into this situation yourself.  Have I missed something?  If so, what?  If not, why should we tolerate such a flagrant waste of our valuable dues money?  Should we not demand more professional conduct by both the Board and RMI?

Finally, why does the Board not cancel this seriously inflated contract immediately?  Is there some kind of unknown “emergency” for these rocks?  Do we not deserve to be provided compelling evidence to explain what appears to be a waste of over $45,000!  Please let me and/or the Board/RMI know what you think.

Sonny Sonnenfeld
Pinnacle Village
Sonnysonnenfeld1@aol.com

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

November 1, 2008 by admin.

For all SCA Veterans:

On November 13th at 11 AM, Thunderbird Pilot Major Kirby Ensser, USAF, will be the luncheon speaker for the SCA Women’s Club.  In honor of our veterans and Veteran’s Day, November 11th, we would like to extend an invitation to SCA Veterans to attend this unique luncheon, and we are requesting assistance from the SCA Veterans SIG and the blog operators to help spread the word on this event.

SCA is extremely grateful to be able to have Major Ensser, USAF, as our speaker this month.  Thunderbird Pilots rarely have time to make pubic presentations.  The Thunderbird Team travels worldwide most weeks during the year, and even when they are home with family and friends, they usually have to fly twice a day to develop new skills and maintain their high levels of aerobatic proficiency. This luncheon promises to be a truly memorable occasion for our community.

Our luncheon will start at 11 AM on November 13 in Hanneman Hall. A catered buffet meal by Chef Neal will be followed by Major Ensser’s presentation.  For this event, we have waived the guest fee for veterans, and the luncheon charge will only be $25.00–the standard price to women’s club members.

Veterans wishing to attend must make a reservation with payment made in the Women’s Club mailbox by Sunday, November 9th by 5 pm.  The payment should be inserted into the locked box in the SCA mail room to the left of the SCA club mail boxes.

We plan to set aside reserved tables for our veterans, but individual veterans may request to be seated with others at different tables.  If you wish to be seated with any specific person or persons, please include the information on a note attached to your reservation when it is placed into the Women’s Club mailbox.  

We look forward to having our veterans attend our Women’s Club November luncheon, and we welcome the opportunity to recognize you at this very special event.  

Thank you, 

Kathy Matson & Kay Frank
Co-Presidents, Sun City Anthem Women’s Club 

Posted in Community Affairs, Special Events, News! | Print | No Comments »