The Sun City Anthem Board Lost 150,000 s.f. of Villa Buildings Surface Area Needing Paint
Just the other day, I posted a Comment on the OP-ED blog entreating resident sleuth David Berman to help find or explain what happened to the 150,000 square feet of exterior surface area suddenly missing from Association records on Villa reserves.
Here is what I wrote:
A Message for David Berman:
With such keen investigative skills, it’s a shame that David Berman has been unable to tell us how the board happened to misplace 150,000 square feet of the 162 Villa homes needing paint. By anyone’s standard, that’s a lot missing surface area for a painting contractor to lose.
To put that amount of loss in some perspective, it is equivalent to more than 2½ times the size of the Anthem Center Recreation Center building. Put another way, it is equivalent to a third of all Villa homes in Sun City Anthem. But what happened to cause this loss or, more simply, where did it all go? Did someone make a mistake or miscalculation? Or, is there some other explanation to account for this loss?
As a dedicated investigative reporter, together with a broad array of high level contacts at his disposal, David should be able to ferret out a rational explanation for this apparent square footage loss of this magnitude.
When did this loss occur? In case David forgot, it occurred last year with the board’s ultimate acceptance of the 2005 “Look-Back” Reserve Study. That board-dictated outcome mandated that the contracted Reserve Specialist, DFS, change the reserve database dimensions of a Villa building from 5,715 s.f. to 3,865 s.f. The only unanswered question is, “Why?”
Given Mr. Berman’s meticulous efforts for accuracy, perhaps he can put us all at rest on this salient mystery.
Ron Johnson
Perhaps David is already making inquiries or more likely David is simply unwilling to address this matter coherently. As I noted above, a loss of 150,000 s.f. is substantial. It is also material when one understands that considerable reserve dollars are necessarily attached to that loss.
Hopefully, there is someone on the current or past board who can provide a credible explanation for the board-dictated change in the reserve database that resulted in a reduction in the size of a Villa building from 5,715 s.f. to 3,865 s.f. That 1,850 s.f. reduction, in turn, is equivalent to an overall reduction for all 162 Villa homes (81 buildings) of just under 150,000 s.f.
While the board initiated this unusual and mysterious action for the 2005 "Look-Back" Reserve Study, the board has continued to use similar unverifiable data for subsequent reserve studies. What's the board really up to?
Ron Johnson, 6 December 2009