Return to the previous page

An Alternative Proposal to Pulte's Kitec Offer

This week Sun City resident Ken Kuhner is planning to meet with Patrick Aulds, Pulte's Nevada head of operations, to discuss his proposed alternative to Pulte's Offer. Here is Mr. Kuhner's proposal.

Another Perspective on Pulte Kitec Offer!

Earlier this week I forwarded a series of Kitec related questions and two counter proposals to Patrick Aulds, South Division President for Pulte. The proposals are provided below.

But first here is the reasoning behind the proposals: After reviewing Pulte offer letters, NRS provisions, details of the Class Action notice, and various website articles I believe that Pulte has failed to provide a reasonable offer per applicable NRS provisions. I also believe that I do not have sufficient information or knowledge to make an informed decision.

I will list just five issues where I am concerned about their offer:

1. it fails to address the potential of mold or mildew. If any of the existing brass fittings have leaked then mold, mildew etc could have developed. Removable of mold could cost thousands of dollars.
2. it provides a sum ($7,800) that may or may not be adequate. Until the contractor actually inspects our home they cannot provide a fixed costs price. Do we have special paint, mirrors or cabinets, islands with water, wallpaper, or other items that might increase the final costs?
3. their release asks us to waive any entitlement or future right without first addressing the mold issue and the issue of determining the actual cost of the repair.
4. it fails to include an offer to repair or cause to repair. NRS wording suggests that such an offer must be made. NRS provisions also state that they may include a proposal for monetary compensation. That’s fine, but let’s first receives the offer to repair or cause to repair for comparison.
5. their release also asks us to “assign” to them” any and all claims and rights against a series of 3rd parties. Why should we not retain these rights?

So, in the spirit of compromise, and in an attempt to be part of a satisfactory solution I developed the following proposals for Pulte’s consideration. I hope this leads to ongoing discussion and negotiation and eventually to a position that is equitable for all parties. After all, Mr.r Aulds stated that they are grateful for our patience and willingness to work with them as they address this issue with their Sun City Anthem homeowners. We should be grateful for this commitment from Pulte.

The use of “You” or “Your” refers to Pulte/Del Webb.

Proposal 1: It is believed that the large majority of Sun City Anthem Homeowners would prefer this proposal. This proposal does not require a payment to the homeowner. Instead, the contractor(s) will, after arriving at each site, prepare a quote and seek approval from “You” to complete the job. Most homes should be at or below the $7,800 in question. But, this proposal recognizes that some homes may require additional funding and this proposal envisions the opportunity for “You”, the contractor(s), and the homeowner to reach a mutually acceptable position in these situations. 

1. “You” will repair or cause to be repaired the Kitec plumbing system.
2. “You” will select and approve and pay the contractors for both the plumbing repair and the stucco, drywall and painting repair.
3. “Your” inspector(s) will determine if a home has Kitec plumbing before any repair work is undertaken.
4. After being Kitec identified the homeowner will be added to the repair list of the respective contractor(s).
5. During the re-plumbing process the contractor will inspect each existing connection to determine if evidence of leakage exists.
6. If leakage evidence exists a qualified firm will be called in to determine if mildew, mold, etc exists. And, if it does, after any required communication or review with “You”, they will then be authorized and paid by “You” to perform the required cleanup in exchange for a special “Release” from the homeowner related to future liability for the cause(s) of the cleanup.
7. Once any cleanup is completed any remaining re-plumbing work will be completed.
8. A local inspector will then be called in.
9. Once the inspection is approved the drywall, stucco and painting will be done.

Proposal 2: This is a revised version of “Your” current proposal. This proposal requires a payment to the homeowner prior to the work being done in exchange for a “Release”. It is suggested that the payment be identified as “up to $7800” (to be determined by approved contractor(s) (during their first visit to each home) or such greater amount as agreed to by “You”, the contractor(s) and the homeowner. Once the contractor has established a price, it is binding on them; except for where the cost exceeds $7800. As noted, further negotiation is required in those cases.

1. “You” will offer a monetary settlement for the Kitec plumbing system repair in exchange for a “to be negotiated” revised “Release”.
2. After “Your” inspectors determine a home has Kitec plumbing it will be added to the repair list of approved contractor(s).
3. On their initial visit the approved contractor(s) will establish and seek approval from “You” for the repair price; and once approved the repair will begin.
4. During the re-plumbing process the contractor will inspect each existing connection to determine if evidence of leakage exists.
5. If leakage evidence exists a qualified firm will be called in to determine if mildew, mold, etc exists and if yes, after any required communication or review with “You”, they will then be authorized and paid by “You” to perform the required cleanup. The “Release” referred to above will cover this contingency.
6. Once any cleanup is completed any remaining re-plumbing work will be completed. The homeowner will then pay the previously agreed to amount covering the re-plumbing part to the contractor.
7. A local inspector will then be called in.
8. Once the inspection is approved the drywall, stucco and painting will be done. Upon completion of the work the homeowner will then pay the previously agreed to amount covering the drywall, stucco and painting repair to the contractor.

If a homeowner selects not to do the repair, to do it themselves, or if they select a non-approved contractor(s) then the amount to be paid by “You” will be determine by “Your” approved contractor(s) based on a special visit by them for the sole purpose of establishing the to be paid amount. Homeowners in this category must also complete the negotiated “Release” prior to receiving such payment.

Proposal 3: For the benefit of the reader the following is “Your” existing proposal: This proposal requires a payment of $7800, upon having a positive inspection for Kitec plumbing, in exchange for a “Release”. The dollar amount may or may not be adequate for the repair, and the “Release” is onerous. Also, the proposal appears to circumvent certain NRS provisions that are very valuable to the homeowner.

(aa) Since the payment appears to be  conditional on an inspection proving that the home indeed has Kitec plumbing “Your” inspector will visit each home.
(bb) Once the Kitec plumbing has been identified the “Release” will be provided to the homeowner for completion.
(cc) When “You” receive it “You” will then begin processing the payment.
(dd) After signing the “Release” the homeowner can register with the approved contractor(s) or the contractor of their choice.
(ee) The contractor(s) will perform the work.
(Note: No mention is made of how evidence of leakage will be handled. No mention is made of how a repair requiring additional funding will be handled-although it appears that the homeowner will be at risk. You” maintain no ongoing responsibility for the plumbing system or for any other work or future liability that the parties mention in the Release” may have done or incurred)
(ff) A builder inspector need sign off on the work.
(gg) After an approved inspection the drywall, stucco and painting will occur.

“Your” consideration to accepting (in place of your current Proposal #3 above) Proposal #1; or, if not, to at least incorporate the steps and revisions suggested in Proposal #2 is appreciated.

Ken Kuhner
Valley View