Was it FRAUD or gross negligence committed by SCA Boards concerning Reserves funds due by the developer since May of 2005?  Now that the board election is once again upon us, that issue HAS to be (finally) answered this year!

NRS Statutes REQUIRE that a Declarant provide a Reserve study and fully fund it at the time of transition to resident control. Del Webb/Pulte (The Declarant) commissioned TWO such studies. The first was submitted to the Board of Directors and unanimously rejected. The second (replacement) reserve study was the 2006 reserve study, and it WAS adopted by the Board. So, why was it necessary for this current Board of Directors to conduct a “2008 Reserve Look-back” and set up a committee to supposedly supply the association with the “Fully Funded” numbers at the time of transition?

Well, the 2nd reserve study received by this association from the developer, was even worse than the first–because it was NOT computed using the mandated May 2005 DATE OF TRANSITION.  It was done wrong twice, and our Board of Directors (including Dea McDonald,  a Pulte Vice President and former SCA Board President) failed to ever require the developer to comply with the law.  Does that sound like serious conflicts of interest to you?

But, instead of requiring the developer to get the study right and fully fund its cash obligations, the SCA Board of Directors set up a special Finance Committee group in 2008 (The Reserve Look Back Committee), to modify the study by computing the “Fully Funded” values for May 2005.  But, let’s go a step further, and ask the multi-million-dollar question.

WHY did the board of directors (including Favil West, Bob Berman, David Berman and Finance Committee Members/board candidates Roz Berman and Jack Troia) FAIL to REJECT THE SECOND reserve study in 2006, and fail to require the developer to get it done right, and pay its obligations according to the law?

Said another way, why DID the SCA Board accept the unlawful 2nd study? And, why were SCA HOMEOWNER funds used to fill up the reserve accounts in 2005 thru 2008 INSTEAD of demanding DW/Pulte fully pay its obligations?  Should we consider that to be simple or gross negligence, or could there be fraud involved because the developer received such high financial benefits–at the expense of SCA homeowners?

Can anyone think of a single valid reason to fail to collect the hundreds of thousands of dollars due from the developer in 2005? And, did EVERY budget from the year 2006 until the present time fail to include the money owed by Del Webb at the time of transition?

Finally, how much would our dues/assessments have been reduced if Del Webb/Pulte had been required to obey the Nevada Statutes in May 2005?  How much did that shortage of hundreds of thousand of dollars by the developer cause our dues/assessments to be excessive in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009?

Why has the current board of directors, and all past boards since the transition, refused to answer these obvious questions? What value has our homeowners received from this failure to collect over a million dollars of reserve funds?

After tolerating 3 years of cover ups, are we going to insist on receiving clear answers this year?  Vote SMART.