The Board's Villa Dilemma

We now know that the Villa owners' presentation by Board members Mike Dixon and Roz Berman had failed miserably. And bless him, David Berman has written that Roz Berman is now working on, let's call it Plan B, unfortunately, though, in lieu of actually providing the Community with the accounting figures she has been careful up until now not to divulge.

With all of this apparent secrecy surrounding the Villa reserves issue, one is beginning to get the impression that our newly elected Board has called upon that infamous “cone of silence” that was popularized by Agent 86 in the TV series Get Smart. Some homeowners, looking beyond the futile requests for records and information, may have already concluded that there may be a conspiracy a foot to keep the truth of the matter from being exposed. But what truth might that be? And, who or what might be exposed?

While I am a bit naïve about such things, I believe that the accounting figures people seem so keen in hiding from view will eventually come out, whether voluntarily or through the efforts of some State investigative agency.  One would have to assume that the Board would not be receptive to an outside agency making inquiries, not knowing where those inquiries might lead. That’s all Mike Dixon needs is the hint of a potential scandal to highlight his short tenure as president of the Association. That prospect would not make for good politics or government.

At this month’s board meeting, I believe board member Elaine Berg was speaking for more than herself when, out of the blue, she declared that she has no interest in looking back. Does that imply there is something back in time the Community should not know? Was Lanie’s comment essentially confirming the existence of an ongoing conspiracy among board members to keep the Community in the dark? While we would hope not, Lanie’s comment has certainly opened that rear door to the past.

But Lanie also said something else on this same matter, something much more relevant than she likely intended. She said that instead of looking back, we need to look forward. I heartily agree with Lanie’s sentiments, at least in one respect. We need to look forward to produce an equitable resolution for the Villa owners.

I do not know what Lanie had in mind when she made her comment, but the Board has the capacity and the ability to resolve this matter in an innovative and equitable way. In order to do so, however, the Board needs to take certain steps that would be designed to make the Villa owners and the Villa Neighborhoods whole on this reserve matter.

Here, I suggest, are two such steps the Board can take now to resolve this matter.  

1. Rescind the 2007 $500 increase in assessments, which will be deemed unnecessary in view of (2) below;
2. Transfer SCACAI monies into the Villa reserve account equivalent to the amount that should have existed at the time of transition, based on $33.80 a month for the period from 1999 to 5-31-2005. The Board may wish to consider adjusting the amount transferred by the amount paid by Pulte to the Association in 2007, while maintaining sufficient operating funds in all accounts.  

First of all, the Board has an established history of transferring monies from the general or operating fund to reserves so a transfer to Villa reserves would not appear to break any legal ground. One must assume the Association has discretion to do so. Second, looking at the June financial report, it would appear that the Association is flush with funds, making any such transfer a workable possibility. Third, the Association may receive up to an additional 1.375 million dollars from Pulte for reserves, if not this year, then in 2008. This "conditional sum" is a sort of reserve bonus Pulte had promised when a change was negotiated in the master plan back in 2002. For example, if the Board decides that the cost benefits derived from “going green” in Recreation Center #3 outweigh the price of “green” construction, then that promised amount for reserves would be less. On the other hand, the Board may decide that the so called benefits of “going green” do not outweigh the costs of doing so, thereby allowing the Association to retain virtually all of those funds for reserves.

As the Board might anticipate and appreciate, a proposed resolution along this line can be expected to have a number of potential benefits for the Association, for current and former members of the Board, for Committee volunteers, and would also aid in furthering Developer-Association relations.