Highlights of an Unusual Board Meeting

along with some troubling outcomes, 26 April 2007

Since the Sun City Anthem Community Association is currently being sued by the lessee of Trumpets, S & D Café V LLC, members of the Board have been directed on advice of legal counsel to not comment on the matter. For additional information on the lawsuit, click here: Trumpets lawsuit

Home sellers and realtors are presumably on notice to revise their disclosure documents to reflect the existence of this lawsuit against the Association.

Recreation Center No. 3

Architectural renderings of the new recreation center are on display in the lobby of the Anthem Center and Independence Center. You can also view those renderings here, including an overall site plan by clicking here: RC3 Design Plans

Assuming those architectural renderings are reasonably accurate, it would appear that the sought after warm water pool will not be as large as many had hoped for.  Also, since design plans are just that, some aspects of the finalized construction plans may turn out to be different from what was recently approved by the City’s Planning Commission.

How much will the acquisition of solar energy at the new Recreation Center cost Sun City?

In the absence of any explanation from Favil West or the Developer, we do not know the cost to Sun City of acquiring electricity from photo-voltaic solar energy at the new recreation center. For example, one of things we have yet to learn is how many square feet of solar collectors will $1.375 million buy? Or put another way, will the south-east exposed surface areas of the roof of the recreation center be sufficient to use up 50%, 75% or 100% of that $1.375 million Del Webb/Pulte had originally promised us?

On the other hand, if the “net cost,” after the Developer takes any applicable State/Federal rebates and, or tax write offs, to the Developer in adopting solar energy is only $500,000, will the Developer then cut a check for the Association in the amount of $875,000 or do we get the entire $1.375 million since no co-generation plant was constructed as we had originally agreed with Del Webb/Pulte? To learn more and the story behind this matter, click here.

Board Supports ACE-Sponsored Proposal

In what had to be the most strange and awkward event of the day, the Anti-ACE Board adopted an ACE-written and supported proposal to turn the abandoned Information Bldg. into an information kiosk for the Security Patrol. What makes the Board’s action even more incredible is the fact that the designated initial purpose of turning this site into an information kiosk will place residents and others at increased risk of an automobile accident due to the obvious safety issues involved in visiting and attempting to exit from this location.

In placing this item on the consent agenda, rather than an open item of business, the Board was telling the Community this was merely a routine item, not worthy of discussion or comment. In actuality, though, in placing the item on the consent agenda, the Board was not required to, nor did they wish to explain or justify their proposed plan of action.

One would have to assume that in approving this item, the Board had purposes other than the safety of residents in mind when they voted to effectively prevent this site from being used for alternative purposes.

Financial Report: A Potential Year-End Shortfall Projected

Each month RMI provides the Board with a financial report. And each month, someone on the Board who has read and understands the report typically makes a cogent comment or two.  Relying on the report ending March 31st, and extending the data forward, Dave Weil was keen enough to observe that RMI was reporting a potential shortfall in Association funds. Such a potential shortfall was quite atypical for RMI to report, amounting to $280,000. While there were some explanations offered to account for the reported shortfall, in terms of how and when this or that budget item is accounted for, the issue Dave raised was not really resolved to his satisfaction.

The lesson here is that when RMI is making their report that shows significant deviations or changes that would appear to affect our future financial position, RMI needs to provide us with a written and corresponding explanation addressing the matter with advice on whether some action is warranted or not and why. I gather from Dave comments that this was not done in this instance.

Shortfall in Villa Reserves

With the threat of a lawsuit from Villa owners to consider, the Board was under some pressure to accommodate the Villa owners who were protesting the Board’s proposed approval of a settlement with the Developer on the amount of the adjustment the Developer needed to make their reserves whole.

Suspicion and mystery remain as Villa owners repeatedly attempted to get answers to why their reserves had been under funded over the years, only now to be made up all at once. Disputes between the Association and the Villa owners remain on the amount the Developer was required to deposit upon transition, alleging that newly developed information had not been considered by the Board.

The Board finally voted to accept the proposed settlement, subject to a review of this new information.

Community Wide Standards

There was an obvious disconnect between the Board and the audience on the proposed adoption of a new document referred to as Community Wide Standards. While some members of the audience perceived this as a means to deny residents due process, the Board tried in vain to explain that this documents was for all practical purposes merely an attempt to help members by bringing together in one piece a collection of governing documents that had been previously been approved by the Board. 

Rather than mailing this package to all residents as originally proposed, Dave Weil announced that it will be posted on the web site.

Security and Access Control: Only $600,000 and counting

The Board will tell us that the security/access control issue has been before the Community for years, implying that any decision the Board was about to make had been properly and fully vetted. That might explain the Board’s April proposal to approve a vendor, namely ADT, as the preferred bidder on a contract for access control, security, cameras, etc., needed to protect us from thievery and to keep out those few Solera hussies who are looking to take us at a high stakes game of mahjongg.

When this matter was brought up last week, a critical mass of energy exploded on the floor of the Freedom Hall, especially with potential contract amounts like $600,000 plus substantial annual maintenance fees being thrown about.

Those who had attended the last Property & Grounds meeting were only too well aware that P&G had voted down this proposal and did not recommend its approval to the Board. It would appear that P&G’s well sounded reasoning in rejecting the ADT proposal was not welcomed news by the Board. Some of P&G’s concerns included:

• The need was not well defined or established, especially in light of the magnitude of the proposed contract amounts being discussed;
• There was an absence of Community understanding of the problems being addressed;
• There was inadequate Community support for the high cost solutions being proposed;
• There was evidence presented that there was no longer any real security threat that required the type and scope of security measures being proposed;
• The installation of low tech security measures had already virtually eliminated the need for a high-priced security system;
• Even if additional security measures were needed, it was evident from those present at the Committee meeting that there are high quality systems available at a fraction of the cost being offered by ADT; and
• Also presented were a range of other considerations that needed attention and investigation before any decision could be recommended.  

Yet, seemingly oblivious to these concerns, the Board, most of whom who were actually present when the matter was discussed before the P&G Committee, was willing to plow ahead in spite of these detracting omissions and concerns. In the end, rather than tabling a badly prepared proposal, the Board made some conciliatory modifications that seemingly and presumably would not bind the Association to any particular course of action in the future.

The Minuteman Foundation

Although not on the April agenda by name, The Minuteman Foundation was nevertheless a very prominent if not a key feature of this month’s agenda. Although buried deeply in the Agenda so that it could not be identified, it was as if the Board and the MMF were either too embarrassed or too afraid to give recognition to the existence of the MMF as an Agenda item and to disclose to the Community the Board's real intentions. To untangle the mystery and for the rest of the story, click here: The Hidden Agenda Item

The Board adjourned around 5:00 p.m. before time ran out to consider a range of New Business items on the planned Agenda, which they will do on Thursday, 3 May, at the special Board meeting to announce the Election results.