“…D. Berman is skilled at trying to change the subject to other unrelated matters to try to avoid having to answer hard questions and accept personal responsibility for his own misconduct. But, the facts remain that he, and his spouse Roz, were key players among those directly involved in the 2005 Reserve Study disaster, and they have steadfastly refused to answer such questions as:…”

mr. frank, neither David nor Roz had any responsibility for the selection of the group to do the reserve study. That company was hired by Del Webb/Pulte and paid for by Del Webb/Pulte in accordance with the NRS. The board did not/could not hire the group, nor did the board pay for either of the studies. However, Roz was on the Finance Committee when it made the recommendation to the board to reject the 2005 study.
The questions that you posed below are not hard questions. (I’ve heard over the years, that there are no stupid questions, but…) They have been answered repeatedly over the years. The innuendos afforded by the questions lack any basis in fact, they make allegations that cannot be proven, and show an incredible lack of knowledge and responsibility expected of a sitting board member. It is clear that in the year and a half that you, mr frank, have served on the board it appears that you have learned nothing.

“…1. Why did it take half a year to reject something so obviously flawed as the 2005 reserve study by Association Reserves, Inc., and why did it take another whole year to get a replacement (that was additionally flawed from being calculated using the wrong as-of date)?…”

The Finance Committee is a group of dedicated volunteers who used their time, talents and efforts to carefully review the reserve study and make recommendations to the board. After due deliberation, the board then followed those recommendations.

“…2. Why was the 2005 Reserves Study not simply revised with better data instead of totally rejecting it half a year later?…”

Both the Finance Committee and the Board believed it was fatally flawed. A reserve study is a snapshot taken in time, and is a projection. It is as objective as it can be, but still must rely on generally accepted data.

“…3. How many millions (plus interest) has DW/Pulte saved since May 2005 because the SCA Boards and (Del Webb and RMI) CAMs have failed to have an accurate and independent reserve study produced that can be used for negotiating a settlement of the developer’s shortages?…”

mr. frank, what precisely is the developer “shortage” and who is making that determination? The Finance Committee, made up of experienced financial people, believe there is no shortage and have stated so many times. The Transition Committee found no shortage in the Association’s reserves. mr frank who are you relying on for the misleading information that you are continuously putting out to the community? Where, under law, does it provide for interest? Interest cannot be assumed, it must be agreed to prior to execution of an agreement. There is no provision under the NRS that automatically provides for interest.

“…4. Since some members of the Board, the CAM, and some standing committee members had to submit data and otherwise participate in the formulation of the initial 2005 reserve study, why was the exceptionally poor quality of the 2005 reserves study product claimed to be such a BIG surprise?…”

Precisely which members of the board, which CAM members, and which Standing Committee members are you referring to? BY NAME. Again, mr frank, you evince a complete lack of knowledge as to how a transition reserve study is completed. I served on the Property & Grounds Committee at that time. It takes a considerable amount of time to analyze all of the data.

“…5. What happened during those 6 months of delays–except that Del Webb was relieved of having to pay millions more into the SCA reserve fund….”

mr frank, you make idle irresponsible statements without any kind of factual back up.
Where are you getting the information that leads you to assert that “Del Webb was relieved of having to pay millions?” What is your source? Who is better at knowing numbers, mr frank, you and your running mates, or the Finance Committee? Publish the figures that back up your allegations.

“…6. Since the CAM was required by law and by SCA contract to verify/ensure the accuracy and integrity of the reserves study (even if individuals like Terry DaSilva and Windy Linow were employed by Del Webb and had obvious conflicts of interests) why did the Board fail to require the CAM to immediately get a fully acceptable reserve study submitted–as required by law? Was the CAM unable to do its job, or was there some other more basic reason?…”

Terry DaSilva was not a manager when the 2005 reserve study was commissioned in 2004. Neither was Wendy Linow. Show us documentation of the assertion that there were “obvious conflicts of interest.” If you, mr frank would start being factual and stop being stupid, you would understand that the Declarant contracts for the transition reserve study.

“…7. Why did the CAM (as authorized by the Board) not call the reserves study contractor in within days of receipt of the bogus study and demand replacement with a quality product or recommend immediate rejection? What have the Del Webb CAM and the RMI CAM done to protect SCA’s interests in this whole sordid affair?…”

The use of the term “bogus study” could expose you, mr frank to serious legal liabilities. The reserve study, when received, was turned over to the Finance Committee for review, which at the time was chaired by Dave Weil. RMI was not the manager at the time the reserve study was commissioned and received. A number of calls were made to the contractor prior to rejection of the 2005 study.

“…8. Why did it take until November 2006 to replace the fake reserves study with yet another reserve study by another company that was also fatally flawed because it was calculated using the wrong date?…”

The use of the phrase “fake reserves study” by you shows your complete lack of knowledge of the reserve study issue as you had only been living in SCA for about a year when the reserve study was commissioned. Reserve studies are not completed over night. They take time. Often six to nine months.

“…9. Who (by name) signed the direction on the replacement reserve study requiring the calculation use the wrong date?…”

This is a question that you should address to someone at Pulte Homes, Inc.

“…10. Why have the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 SCA Board majorities seemingly conspired to allow Del Webb/Pulte to get away with seriously underfunding millions of dollars for our SCA reserve accounts for the past few years?…”

At this point mr frank you should begin to fund his own liability as you are making serious accusations that could result in legal action being taken against you. Had you, mr frank attended board meetings and listened to the discussions during 2004, 2005, and 2006, you would have known that the reserves were not underfunded. mr frank as a member of the board you are just as liable for every board action as any other board member. The fact that one votes for, against, abstains or remains silent on an issue does not abrogate your responsibility and liability as a member of the board.

“…11. Why have large SURPLUS homeowner dues been knowingly used since 2006 to fund the developer shortages in our reserve accounts INSTEAD of requiring the developer to fully pay its legal obligations into the association reserves? Does that not seriously jeopardize the community’s chances of collecting what the developer owes for the reserves?…”

mr. frank, as you know, the association is responsible for operating in a businesslike manner. The association responsibly collected dues to meet the operating and reserve requirements of the association. The declarant met his responsibility each year as reported to the board by the various Finance Committees, chaired by Mr. Gingerelli, Mr. Weil, Mr. Troia, and Mr. Manning. Any one of these gentlemen has forgotten more than you, mr frank know about reserve studies, financial planning and corporate financial responsibilities. SCA transitioned in May of 2005. By 2006 SCA had been independent of Del Webb/Pulte for a year. The 2007 board under Mike Dixon, President, and you, bob frank a vice president raised the dues. Why was this done, if there was such a surplus? It appears that you speak out of both sides of your mouth.

“…12. And, of course, why has it been so hard to get answers to the above questions? All of the answers should be above board and a matter of record? Why the cover ups? Who (besides the developer’s companies and employees) have benefited from the gross mismanagement of SCA reserves?…”

One might answer all of these questions by simply stating that it is extremely difficult to provide an intelligent answer to a series of questions so stupidly repeated. You, mr frank, should spend some time engaging your mind before engaging your mouth and or your keyboard. Each of these questions has been answered repeatedly by the various boards, Finance Committee members, etc. You must find that it is hard to listen when you are talking.

In summation, you haven’t stated a fact in the entire post. Lots of innuendos, thinly veiled accusations, but no facts.

Well — Here’s one for the books. Chuckie wants to ask a bunch of questions but when he and his pal Favil were asked the following questions, all anybody heard was silence!

Maybe you could ask your pal Favil to answer now Chuckie, It might clear up a lot of confusion — or is that the idea — just create a lot of confusion and maybe every one will get disgusted.

A message to Chuck Davis and Favil West

I received the latest issue of The Anthem Compendium in my E-mail this morning Dec. 6, 2007. Even though the issue was dated June 8, 2007, I realize that must be an unintended error. I noticed also that you have decided to return to publication, even though you haven’t received any meeting Agendas from RMI for many months.

Don’t feel bad Chuck, RMI is probably not the reason you are not receiving the agendas in a timely manner anyway. Most of the residents here are also frustrated by the board who continues to put out late agenda’s and make last minute changes to agenda items that concern the community.

I was very interested in your interview with Favil West (The previous board president). After reading the interview, I concluded that Favil’s biggest claim to fame is that he is a “negotiator”. I was particularly impressed with Favil’s statement, i.e.:

“Once the board makes a decision, the written agreement should be reviewed by competent licensed attorneys and subsequent to that, the lease should be signed.”

I realize that Favil was referring to the Trumpet lease, but none-the-less, for Favil to make that statement, he must realize the implications it imposes when one considers the Villa Agreement that you intend to talk about in the future with Favil. You indicated in your article that Favil and you will talk about “the Villas, the dues increase, and a few other things next week”

I can hardly wait! When you meet again with Favil, would you mind asking him the following questions? The Villa owners have never been able to get a satisfactory answer to these questions from Favil and/or from Kay Dwyer, and your assistance would be very welcome by 162 Villa owners. I’m certain of that.

Question 1.

When you and Kay Dwyer signed the Villa agreement on April 27, 2007 were you both aware that Del Webb/Pulte had a legal obligation to transfer the funds into the reserves of the Sun City Anthem Association (including neighborhoods), within a 30 day time period from the date of transition (May 31, 2005), almost two years prior to your action? Had RMI’s reserve fund specialist fully prepared you for all aspects of the negotiations—as required by NAC?

Question 2.

When you signed the Villa agreement on April 27, 2007, were you aware of the capital asset reserve fund that is described in the governing documents of Sun City Anthem? ($33.60 per mo./per Villa owner) If so, why was Del Webb/Pulte not required to deliver the full amount as “Neighborhood Reserves” at time of transition in May 2005? By not requiring Del Webb/Pulte to deliver the full amount collected during the declarant control period, did the Board (and yourself as the Treasurer under both Boards—both before and after May 2005) fail in their fiduciary responsibilities under the law?

This issue was presented to you in a meeting attended by John Leach in late 2006, and you said at that time you were not aware of this fund within our governing documents. But, is there any evidence you did anything (as SCA Treasurer) to correct this serious error by Del Webb/Pulte?

Question 3.

When you signed the Villa agreement on April 27, 2007, were you aware that the numbers provided in the Villa Agreement came from a reserve study that had not been registered with the State of Nevada as required by NRS 116.31152 (4)? And, did you know that RMI did not have a copy of the reserve study used to calculate the amounts due from the developer? How could that situation be unknown and/or accepted by any Board Member?

Question 4.

Since you claim to have initiated the negotiations in late 2006/early 2007 with Del Webb/Pulte to add more money to the Neighborhood Reserve Funds, did you draft the agreement and personally calculate the amounts owed, or did you have some attorney other than John Leach or some other resident serve as author?

Or, perhaps you allowed Del Webb to control the contents and dollar amounts of the agreement? In addition, why was the amount of $241,717 agreed to when the calculation should have been close to $582,000? If Del Webb collected the larger amount, why was the amount collected over the years from Villa Owners not transferred into the reserves at transition? Did Del Webb Community Management Co. and/or the Board make a mistake, or perhaps commit a fraud? Since you were Treasurer of the SCA Association at that time, did you have some personal culpability in this loss of funds that was being covered up with the settlement agreement?

Question 5.

Before you signed the Villa agreement on April 27, 2007, did you consult with an appropriate professional as required before making this decision? If so, are you aware it is a matter of law that you must provide the name of professional(s) involved in such legal documents to the membership?

Question 6.

Before you signed the Villa agreement on April 27, 2007, did RMI participate in the negotiations and advise you that Del Webb had not complied with NRS 116.31038 that calls for the developer to “adequately” fund the reserves within a 30 day period from May 31, 2005? If your business judgment suggested to you that no more funds could be obtained from Del Webb at that time, why did you accept the unsatisfactory amount as “final” and agree to close out future negotiations instead of allowing the new board to continue the process?

Question 7.

I understand that you served as Secretary, Treasurer , President and/or Community Manager during the years of 2001 to 2007. Most of this time was under Del Webb control of the construction and the Community Manager contract. I also understand that Jack Troia and yourself (at the same time you were serving as a Director and President of the Association) also served as a two-man committee reporting to the Finance Committee concerning the reserves of the association, and the neighborhoods.

Your recommendations to the finance committee were then adopted by a board resolution–without a vote by the neighborhoods or the full community. Since there are many questions about the developer’s underfunding of SCA reserves of over $2 million, does this not suggest a potential conflict of interest on your part?

Here is a copy of a letter I sent to the SCA Finance Committee on April 17, 2007. Would you believe it - I never got an answer!

How come no body around here wants to answer any questions??
—————————————————-

April 17, 2007

To The SCA Finance Committee ;
Don Manning (president)

I recently received an Email from Don Manning that informed me that the slides presented at the last Board of Directors meeting and the current state of the Villa’s reserves will not be addressed at this meeting. He stated that it is considered a “Board” matter, and I presume the matter WILL be discussed at a proposed meeting on April 23 with some members of the Board, and some representatives from each Villa neighborhood in attendance. I understand and accept that.

I do however have some questions concerning the published 2007 Neighborhood budget.

Slide no. 25 of the 2007 Neighborhood budget contains the following statement. “Reserve funds are substantially under funded and face significant cash outflows in 2008. Plans need to be developed to solve cash flow issues”

Question: In the last five months have any plans been developed and have any recommendations made to the board of directors concerning this statement in the 2007 neighborhood budget?

Slide number 25 of the 2007 Neighborhood budget also contains this statement “ Duplex increase in homeowner fees primarily due to new Reserve Study that has a substantial increase in cost from the original 2000 Reserve Study”. As you know the control of The Sun City Anthem Board of Directors went from Developer control to Community control on May 31, 2005. Before that can be accomplished Nevada State law requires that a new reserve study be undertaken (NRS 116.31038.3). It is my understanding that a new reserve study was in fact undertaken to satisfy The Nevada State law, but it is not mentioned. This statement in our 2007 budget refers only to a 2000 reserve study.

Question: Why is the 2005 reserve study that is required by Nevada State Law is NOT mentioned, and why was the increase in our homeowner fees was calculated from the 2000 reserve study?

I think you owe an explanation to the Villa home owners, as well to The Board of Directors concerning this matter.

I would hope that these questions be answered at this meeting. If not, then the matter be taken up with The Board of Directors at the earliest time. Perhaps at the Board of Directors meeting scheduled for April 26, 2007.

Norman McCullough

To all readers;

What follows is a letter that was sent to Arnie Snow (Then community manager), on Jan. 13, 2007.

As a side note referring to the last paragraph, Arnie Snow accepted a check from “The Villa’s” bank account a short time after receiving the letter.

————————————————-

Jan. 13, 2007

Arnie Snow
Community Manager
Sun City anthem

Re: “The Villa’s”, A new group of home owners in Sun City Anthem.

Please advise The Board of Directors of the information contained in this letter.

Yesterday (in my home), a meeting was held. Attending the meeting were representatives from all four of the Villa neighborhoods in our community, as well as other Villa home owners who are volunteering their time to assist our new group. Many things were accomplished that are of concern to the Villa owners, but the most important outcome is the reason for this letter.

We wish to inform you and The Board that we have become a unified group known as “The Villa’s”. At the present time the signatures of more than 50% of the 162 Villa homeowners in the community have been gathered (more are being added daily), to have “The Villa’s” represent their interests, and concerns to The Board of Directors. I have been elected as spokesman for the group. In addition, each of the four Villa neighborhoods now have two representatives that will represent each Villa neighborhood in their communications with each other as well as with the group as a whole. We have compiled a database with the names, addresses, phone numbers., etc. We have Asked for (and received) donations of money (to cover mailing expenses etc.), that is being held in a bank account for them. The following names are the representatives in each Villa neighborhood:

Mountain View Harold Moore and Alan Harriman

High Mesa Norman McCullough and Darla Kern

Canyon Crest Gil Mars and Jim Blaine

Club House Tom Hamilton and Jack Matteson

Also at the meeting of “The Villa’s” certain Villa owners were designated as a subcommittee in each of the neighborhoods to gather information, prioritize and possibly defer future reserve spending so that we can conduct the reserve budget spending in a measured and responsible manner. It is noted here that all the Villa’s landscaping was designed and installed with a landscape plan that was drawn in 1998 (or earlier), and that all 162 Villa homes are scheduled to be repainted in the year 2008. To our knowledge there is no existing document that indicates some of the Villa’s have all ready been painted or that some may not need a “complete” paint job, but rather a “touch up” that may extend the time line set forth in the reserve study. We think that in order to spend the money in the reserve fund in a responsible manner, it requires that a thorough and detailed study be undertaken. The requirement of the reserve study (that has been adopted and ratified by the board) seems to be too excessive in spending the funds that are available. It is also noted here that to fund all the proposed reserve spending for the year 2008 can only be accomplished by a Special Assessment from the Villa owners, or contributions from Del Webb which at this point in time is uncertain. It is also noted that the Villa Owners were not allowed to examine the reserve study until after Nov. 16, 2006 when it was ratified. Many questions still need to be answered about how to conduct the requirements that the reserve study imposes. If a home owner has access to a reputable painting contractor that would paint his house for half the cost, would he be allowed to do so and how would that affect his assessment, for example.

There are a great many questions that our group have raised, but this letter will not address them now except to say we would certainly welcome the opportunity to discuss our problems with The Board Members in a separate session rather than at the regular board meeting. We feel that this would provide for a more intimate exchange of ideas and we also feel that the Villa Home owners need to be assured that their plight is “on the front burner” and that The Board really is willing to address our concerns.

As a separate note, please be advised that if I ask for information, I am representing the majority of The Villa Owners in Anthem. If (as you indicated to me), that you intend to impose a charge for the information, please submit a bill to “THE VILLA’S” at my home address, and it will be paid by check from “The Villa’s” bank account.

Thank You

Norman McCullough

To all readers;

Here is a copy of a receipt for $97.50. The check was from “The Villa’s” bank account, and was received (Invoice No. 0115200) into the associations bank accounts. Eunice M Bohannon is the treasurer of “The Villas”.

—————————————-

THE VILLAS

Jan. 27, 2007

RE: Invoice Number 0115200

Mr. Norman McCullough has submitted the above mentioned Invoice for payment. In a recent phone conversation you requested a check be made out to SCACA. To comply with your request Check No 0093 from the bank account of “The Villas” has been issued and made out to SCACA Inc. for the amount of $97.50 to cover the costs to copy the 2000 Reserve Study and one copy of the registration Form (2 pages). Mr. McCullough will pick up the materials at the front desk.

Thank You

Eunice M Bohannon
Treasurer The Villas

Enclosure: Check No. 0093 for payment to SCACA