To Bob Sansing; Come on Bob, just do as I pointed out to you (in this thread), READ page 1-4 of The 2006 reserve study at the association's office. It says:
“The funding level for the Sun City Anthem Community Association’s reserve fund is 57%"
What you SHOULD be asking is "Why is the association UNDERFUNDED 43%?"
I was man enough to apologize to you when you told me that you were mis-informed by the finance committee, now it's your turn,
Carol McLendon said:
WOW! Did we support A.C.E. or just get aced? The egos, the dues increase, the golf fee increase, the use of land, the traffic, the defects in our homes, the constant construction noise and dust,(we live near Inspirada, which we were told would never be built since it's a flood zone and approach to the airport), and the constant fighting since we bought our home four years ago have left a pretty bad taste in our mouths for an association scenerio, not to mention Pulte. What happened to the $3 mil that was rumored to be in our accounts? If we don't own the golf courses, are they paying us rent? Get a decent, affordable restaurant that WILL pay us rent. With the new villages filling up and paying fees, why isn't our bank account increasing? Are we leasing the land to all of the businesses going in or did Pulte sell that land too? Something very curious is happening here and it obviously has nothing to do with the truth.
Carol McLendon said:
WOW! Did we support A.C.E. or just get aced? The egos, the dues increase, the golf fee increase, the use of land, the traffic, the defects in our homes, the constant construction noise and dust,(we live near Inspirada, which we were told would never be built since it's a flood zone and approach to the airport), and the constant fighting since we bought our home four years ago have left a pretty bad taste in our mouths for an association scenerio, not to mention Pulte. What happened to the $3 mil that was rumored to be in our accounts? If we don't own the golf courses, are they paying us rent? Get a decent, affordable restaurant that WILL pay us rent. With the new villages filling up and paying fees, why isn't our bank account increasing? Are we leasing the land to all of the businesses going in or did Pulte sell that land too? Something very curious is happening here and it obviously has nothing to do with the truth.
Rana Goodman said:
Bob (Sansing) with all due respect to you, to Roz and to a good friend of mine on the finance committee; I must bounce that question right back at you. What proof can you all possibly have that the developer DOESN’T owe us any more money when RMI’s systems of our financial records are in such discord with ours? Each time I have attended a Finance committee meeting they seem to be at their wits end attempting to get straight answers to their questions from RMI’s accounting people. This goes way back to board meetings where Dave Weil was yelling about the same thing and everyone thought he was just being rude. I’m sorry but as good as Roz might be with numbers, if a Rubic’s cube is broken nothing is going to make the pieces fit together. The reserves were assembles based on 5 year old figures, that horse simply won’t run. All of us that voted for Roz knew she had the best of intentions but she can juggle the numbers until the cows come home, if they (RMI) don’t give her the CORRECT numbers to work with how in God’s name will she come up with the TRUE answers. The worst part is that RMI should be doing this job, Roz Berman should not be putting in the man hours she is, this is what we are paying RMI to do. Roz should be looking over their shoulder, but the amount of hours she is working on this mess, with figures that don’t match is shameful
Bob Sansing said:
The following posting belongs on this thread:
I have a simple question to ask all of those residents that feel Pulte has left our reserves under funded. What evidence do any of you have that your assertions are true?
I voted for Roz Berman because of her direct experience on the Finance Committee as our reserves expert. She tells me that after reviewing all of the records, Pulte has in fact, left our reserves in compliance with NRS:116 and that they do not owe us any further money for reserves.
So I repeat, what evidence, if any, does anyone have to the contrary?
I thought we elected our Board to ensure that we were being treated fairly by the developer. So why are so many people distrusting what the Board tells us?
Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community
Bob Sansing; I will apologize any time its neccesary because of a misunderstanding. That's what is expected of civil, people who beleive everyone should be treated with dignity. I think we agree there could be a little more of that around these parts.
Bob Sansing said:
Norm:
Thanks for your apology. I like to think that we can continue to be friends and cordial to one another.
Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community
Bob Sansing said:
Dear Anita:
I am sorry I don't have the answer to your question regarding the Villa's. I don't know what is included in your overall charge per year but I think that information is available from the Finance Committee. I do remember that way back about 4 years ago I asked the then Community Manager, Bill Dively, how the assessments were set for Pinnacle Village and if our over payments were being held separate, he couldn't answer. He suggested that maybe Pinnacle Village should have its' own separate HOA to determine the proper level of assessments per house.
After I moved from Big Sky Village to Pinnacle Village I tried to convince my fellow Pinnacle owners to remove the gate, return the streets to the city of Henderson, and thus saving each homeowner $420 per year. I was unsuccessful because too many of the Pinnacle Village homeowners actually believed that the gate offered real security.
Thank you for being civil in your posting, a refreshing change in this thread.
Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community
Anita De Souza said:
Bob Sansing
The Villa Owners pay and additional 2000.00 per year over and above what the single family home owners pay. That is an additional $324,000.00 per year from the Villa Owners for the Villa Owners. How is it Pinnacle is 87% funded for their reserves and the Villas are so short that we are now told our maintenance will be deferred and spread out over 5 years? I await your explaination.
I apologize, apparently it is the finance committee who mis-informed you. Maybe they never read page 1-4 of the 2006 reserve study. But what the heck --- whats a million or more, right?
Norman McCullough
Proud to be serving my neighbors.
Bob Sansing said:
Norm:
I got the figure of 69% funded from the Finance Committee during one of the many departmental budget presentations.
The reason Pinnacle Village is funded to the high level is because we pay an additional $420 per year per house over and above what the other single family homes pay each year. That is an additional $94,500 each year from Pinnacle Village for Pinnacle Village.
Lastly, it is nice to have friends in all places, including the Villas.
Have a nice day.
Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community
You said in your post to Ron Johnson above “We are currently at 69% funded”. If you would take the time to go to the associations office, and ask to see the 2006 Reserve Study (ratified by the BOD), on page 1-4 you will find this statement:
“The funding level for the Sun City Anthem Community Association’s reserve fund is 57% the Neighborhoods reserve fund is Point Pleasant 5%, Pinnacle Village 87%, High Mountain 19%, High Mesa 20%, and Canyon Crest 18%”
The only figure I see on this list that is over 70% funded is Pinnacle Village (the neighborhood YOU happen to live in). If you want to critisize Ron Johnson, you might at least get your facts straight.
While your at it, perhaps offer an explination of why your particular neighborhood is so well off financialy. Good luck perhaps? By the way, thanks for admitting you were instrumental in brokering a deal to allow Mike Dixon to be president of this association. I guess it pays to have friends in the right places.
Karen said:
All of this ongoing nonsense of peolpe pointing fingers at each other scares me to death. Have we elected a board of wimps? Whatever happened to mature adults?
Bob Sansing said:
Dear Mr./Ms Anonymous:
You said “if he has hopes of reelection to the Board at the next election everyone needs to examine his actions since he knew what was going on and did nothing about it when he served.” I have said to many people during the spring that I would decide on running for the SCA Board for 2008 after I returned from my 3 month drive around America vacation. When I returned I told many of my friends that I have decided NOT to run. Primarily because I expect to continue with our summer long vacations each year and it wouldn’t be proper to take a Board position under those circumstances.
You also said “He is a pompous ass!” You are certainly entitled to your opinion but or Rules and Regulations have a Code of Conduct which you have now violated.
You also said “His assassination of Bob Frank is uncalled for because Bob Sansing is not blameless himself for some of the deeds that were done by the former Board!” I would like to see examples of my “assassination of Bob Frank”. I have asked some tough questions because I think it is important that our SCA VP be held accountable for attending meetings which will allow him to better serve our community. As far as being “not blameless” I will reiterate the fact that I was one person and for the Board to pass anything you need 4 votes, In the case of the S & D eviction, I was only able to get 3, and I truly regret that outcome.
Have a nice day,
Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community
another anonymous said:
Also what happened to that other(Nine hole course which was Planned???
Anonymous said:
Chuck, thanks for that correction on "community-owned" golf courses. The interesting issue about those courses is that I believe they were intended to be community owned but before that happened, Pulte sold them for $20 million or so. Now, if an intended asset of the Community is sold off, unlike lots to a developer, should the Community derive some benefit from the sale of that asset? Had Pulte turned that asset over to the Community, as we assume they would as they have done elsewhere, then the Community could have realized $20 million from the sale. Pulte prevented that from happending when they sold the courses. Are we "entitled" under some construction of the law to a portion of the proceeds from that sale?
Michelle said:
David B. you would make a fascinating study for psychiatry major. You wish to share the news on your blog and very often do a fine job, however I must say lately, if you will forgive me you seem to be having a melt-down. You reported quite admirably on the insurance meeting and then it is added to here that you missed a huge bit about construction defects huh!!! Not like you ate all. I went back to your site to ask you about it and found that #1. That news item allowed no comments #2 you had blocked me from your site, what had I done I asked myself, then I remembered, I reminded you when you said some people had violated code of conduct, that you too had been guilty of that.. opps! I now banned from commenting on your sight. Now that you see people who used to bring life to your blog have continued conversation here, you jump over and attempt to antagonize and provoke why? Are you really so petty, WOW, RG must have really hit a nerve then
David Berman said:
Mary Lee:
I'm not interested in long-winded debates with intolerant people, but I AM interested in correcting flat-out misstatements of fact.
Let's tackle two of the prominent misstatements in your recent post.
The developer NEVER promised to "pass on construction savings" on Recreation Buiilding 3 to the community. Since you were apparently not living here at the time, I shall educate you.
The developer and Favil made an agreement that if an energy co-generation (cogen) facility was not constructed, the amount allocated for that project, $1.375 million, would be contributed by the developer to the Association's general reserve funds. As it became apparent that rising natural gas costs would make a cogen plant unfeasible, the developer was requested, instead, to use some of the cogen money to "green" the design of Rec 3 to produce as much energy savings as possible. The commitment now is that the developer must show how much extra it will be putting into Rec 3 for solar heating and other green improvements, with the remainder going into the Association reserve account. That amount is yet to be determined, but I believe the Finance Committee is making an asumption that half the cogen money will be available for the reserve account.
As to the cost of maintaining Rec 3, it was widely publiczed as far back as several years ago that Rec 3 would be a major factor in requiring future dues increases. I supported Rec 3, and continue to do so, because a commitment was made to our residents, especially those coming into that immediate area.
The lowest figure I have seen for the total annual costs of Rec 3 after it comes on line is $500,000, and I've heard others estimating that it could be as high as $750,000.
Sprry to confuse you with the facts, but I don't think anyone would describe even the lowest estimate as chump change when it comes to affecting our dues.
David Berman said:
Too bad, Norman, that you don't understand the purpose of a blog such as mine. My practice is primarily to share news and information with the community, and the number of responses an item generates is irrelevant. Ongoing bitch sessions are obviously welcome here, including gutless anonymous posts, but they are not on my blog.
One thing I find interesting is your apparent glee in thinking that I have suffered a drop-off in visits to the blog. In the week before the last contentious Board meeting, my blog was visited from 2,019 dedicated e-mail addresses. Last week it was visited from 2,028 addresses. The number of actual subscribers in the week prior to the Board meeting was 851. It is currently 857. A number of unsubscriptions, of course, but outweighed by new subscriptions.
The average number of daily dedicated visitors in the week prior to the Board meeting was 425. Last week it was 569. The average length of a visit to the site the week prior to the Board meeting was 3 minutes and 17 seconds. The week after the Board meeting it was 4 minutes and 55 seconds.
And because my reports list the e-mail addresses of site visitors, I know that several people who stated they would no longer visit the site have in fact done so, mostly on more than one occasion.
What's most amusing is what I predicted would happen in one of my posts that actually WAS an editorial: Those who are of a certain ilk have a kind of moral bankruptcy that won't allow them to stick to disagreements over the issues. Not only do they set out to disparage others as persons, rather than for what they perceive to be actions they disagree with, but they also find it necessary to go back in time to label them with personal attacks that they never thought of raising at any time in the past.
Your problem, Norman, in my respectful opinion is that you ask relevant questions, but when you don't like the answers you pretend that you never heard them. It's a shame that the cumulative five hours you, Mary and Anita spent with Roz at our home, sitting in front of her computer to reach consensus on what the issues are that need further research, have all been forgotten. How many hours have you spent in front of Bob Frank's computer?
If any one is wondering why David Berman has so much time to spend here on Ron Johnson's website? The reason may be reveiled in the readership numbers of his own site.
From the last five editorials that were posted by David B. he managed to get a total of 14 responses (3 of the 5 got zero).
Ron Johnson on the other hand got a total of 105 responses from his last three editorials.
Way to go Ron Johnson!! Maybe it pays to "tell it like it is", and tell the people the unvarnished truth, and not a diet of sugar coated bull droppings.
Frances said:
read Dixon'a report in our monthly magazine....how different he speaks now...his statement that he is not working for the people but rather following the rules of the association by-laws etc..made me angry,...while running for election his one concern was for the owners....I can no longer trust anything this man says or does....what made him change his mind....he should be ashamed to face all of us who put our faith in him..no longer....hurray for Mr.Frank...I admire a man with integrity..I feel Dixon has none.....
A Resident said:
Is anyone concerned about the emergency Executive BOD meeting today at noon?
Also, Here is a riddle.... what do Favil West, the Berman's(Bob, Roz and David}, Mike Dixon,Bob Sansing, Lainie Berg and Kay Dwyer have in common? Answer: Incredible arrogance!
Mary Lee Duley said:
HERE WE GO AGAIN, ANOTHER ATTACK ON RECREATION CENTER 3! I am not an analyst, but considering the scope of the project, compared to the overall community, I fail to understand how Recreation Center 3 can be the major cause for the proposed massive increases in our fees. How will Mr. Sansing's suggestion of reducing the scale of Recreation Center 3 save us money (maintenance of a pool alone) or does he think that Pulte's 2002 agreement to pass on the construction savings will still be honored? MUST WE, ONCE AGAIN, DIVIDE THE COMMUNITY ON RECREATION CENTER 3; DIDN'T THE LAST ATTEMPT BY MR. FAVIL WEST AND HIS FRIENDS DO ENOUGH DAMAGE?
Anonymous said:
It's good to see that someone else knows to look at Bob Sansing as having some responsibility in some of the things the Board did WHEN HE WAS ON THE BOARD. If he has hopes of reelection to the Board at the next election everyone needs to examine his actions since he knew what was going on and did nothing about it when he served. He is a pompous ass! His assassination of
Bob Frank is uncalled for because Bob Sansing is not blameless himself for some of the deeds that were done by the former Board!
Anonymous said:
It's good to see that someone else knows to look at Bob Sansing as having some responsibility in some of the things the Board did WHEN HE WAS ON THE BOARD. If he has hopes of reelection to the Board at the next election everyone needs to examine his actions since he knew what was going on and did nothing about it when he served. He is a pompous ass! His assassination of
Bob Frank is uncalled for because Bob Sansing is not blameless himself for some of the deeds that were done by the former Board!
He states: "...fully fund those reserves...." Fully funded does not mean 100%. Reserves at 100% would mean that the Board of Directors could replace every improvement, buildings, sewer lines, underground electrical, paving, tennis courts, bocce ball courts, landscaping, etc. on all land owned by the Association in one year without assessments! How likely that we would need that? Following the completion of Rec Center 3, the chances are even slimmer.
However, he also has a few problems with accuracy. He states: "...operation of two Community-owned golf courses that were subsequently sold by the Developer...." The golf courses were NEVER "Community-owned."
Michelle said:
Now as I understand it, Trumpets has not paid rent in 3 years plus 9 months of this year, let’s see who the board members were during that time? Could they be the same people who are saying things like “I’m not looking to place blame”…. “how much are you willing to spend to check back records”, Who was on the board when we allowed Trumpets to rack up almost one quarter of a million in debt? Ah!, ummmm! I think that would be several of the people accusing Bob Frank of misdeeds… There is nothing like attempting to throw suspicion away from yourselves, to take the focus away from important issues at hand and take ones eye off the ball.
Let’s stop this nonsense of throwing mud and take care of what is important; Bob Sansing, you know full well that the residents living next to rec. center three want and expect a full recreation center. That is what they were promised and there is no reason that they should not have it. If our board needs to curb their ridiculous spending waste to accommodate these things by cutting out things like $34,000 decorators when we have bides from professionals that were far less costly, $5,000 investigations to tell us how to light the parking lot more brightly and so on, so bit it.
anon. said:
Former board members Bob Sansing and David Berman seem to always be complaining about others and never wanting to own up to their past mistakes and reponsiblities. Did they not fail in their duty to evict Trumpets operators before they accumulated hundreds of thousands of debt, and cost us more hundreds of thousands in operating costs? Did they ever demand that Pulte make the reseve fund whole or even question the quality of the reserve fund study?
No one seems to remember anything specific that Bob Sansing accomplished as a board member except to constantly remind us he is "proud to have served". Perhaps both Berman and Sansing realize that ending the secrecy and going after the money S&D and Pulte owes us might be embarassing, and maybe even dangerous for them?
Bob Sangsing; Apparently you don't understand what reserves are meant to accomplish. They are supposed to be funded at a high enough level to accumulate interest that can be used to HELP the association finance future expenditures. At the end of this year, the association reserves are expected to be under funded $1,915,798 (or 36% of recommended amount). In three years (end of 2010), the association reserves are expected to be underfunded $3,299,393 (or 42% of the recommended amount). There is and old saying, "When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING! Maybe the BOD can explain to you why the association reserves are going in the wrong direction. Maybe they can even tell you how long it will take to eventually be underfunded 100% (broke). Mathematically it looks like this (increasing 2% a year from 36%). 36-38-40-42-44-46-48-50 and so on. So we go broke in 2039. Hey we'll both be dead by then, so why worry about it huh? Of course my grand kids are going to be real mad at me. But why worry about them either?
And why worry about a few laws broken (NRS 116 for example). It's only money right? Problem is -- ITS OUR MONEY.
Bob Sansing said:
Ron:
You missed a few facts in your article. If you read NRS:116 carefully it doesn't specify the exact percentage that a developer leave to the Association upon transition. We are currently at 69% funded which means if 69% of all reserved items needed replacing within one year we could do it. In most home owner associations, 60% reserves are considered very good. When Pulte went through transition with us there was no reserve study done for Pinnacle Village or the Villas. When the reserve study was completed in 2006 our Board, using regression analysis, determined the amount of money that Pulte owed SCA based upon the 2006 study.
The primary reason for the proposed increase is to cover the costs of Rec Center #3, it's reserve requirements and replenishing our total reserves to a 90% level.
There are many ways to lower our future expenses, from accepting a 69% reserve level, to eliminating the outdoor pool at rec. center #3, etc.
We can also increase our revenues via the new restaurant, selling sponsorships to new TV99 programming and selling new types of advertisements in a newspaper.
As a previous SCA BoD Director I have never seen anyone work harder as treasurer than Roz Berman. She is an expert in reserve studies and tracking the money. As with anything else, there is a price to pay in investigating the past. How much are we willing to spend to uncover it? $100,000.00 or $1,000,000.00, you tell me?
Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community
I would like to warn every one - if David Berman should ever offer to do your taxes, don’t take him up on the offer. I think he is “mathematically challenged”. This is what he told Bill Way on Aug. 29, 2007
“Several years ago, former Finance Committee chair Dave Weil developed a computer model that has been remarkably accurate in its predictions to date. The model predicted, among other things, that it would take about $1,100 to $1,200 a year to make us self-sustaining without developer contributions. The annual increases over the next three years that were discussed at the Assessment Scenarios Workshop would put us over that amount by 2010, but those greater amounts might not be necessary after 2008, so it might turn out that the figures actually are a bit lower.”
David did not tell Mr. Way, that at the end of the year 2010 when our dues are predicted to be $1,438 that the association’s reserve fund will still only be 58% funded. He also failed to tell Mr. Way that it is predicted at that time our association reserves will be UNDERFUNDED $3,299,393.
So Mr. Way, if you are reading this, and you would like to see the numbers, call me. I’ll even copy them for you (at the price of $0.25 per page naturally).
Anita De Souza said:
The Villa Owners have been fighting this reserve underfunding battle for a year now. We have been steamrolled, stonewalled,told to shut up and sit down, and our dues were increased by $500.00 in 2007. Now perhaps the rest of the Association will show some interest in underfunded reserves. Co-incidently current projection is a $498.00 per unit shortage by 2010. The current recommendation is to increase dues by $166.00 per year for the next 3 years in order to soften the blow for the residents. No such consideration was given for the Villa Owners. We were told the units had to be painted in 2008 and that was why we had to put in the extra $500.00 immediately. NOW that we SHOULD have the money, and the painting price is at or below the funded price,we are told that the Villas wil NOT be painted next year but will be spread out over the next 5 years.
Rana Goodman said:
Once again Ron you have written an excellent article. What I fear, even if the board majority would agree to rethink their stance on looking at what Pulte owes, which I personally hate to sound pessimistic about but with their stubborn mindset, can’t see happening , is the consequences of the agreement that Kay Dwyer and Favil West signed. The attorney that I took it to said although it was not impossible to overturn, it would be very difficult. They had essentially signed away all of the villa’s rights to go after Del Webb/Pulte forever. So if the $241,000 for the villas & Pinnacle is not enough, it’s “so sad, to bad for all the “folks” who live there. He added that they have “one heck of a case against our board of directors”, and was willing to take it on a contingency he felt so strongly about it.
Thank you Ron Johnson for shining this spotlight into the dark hidden corners that are known around these parts as The Association's Dirty Laundry Closet. Now just like roaches in the sun light, watch the previous board members (including David Berman) run for cover.
Leave a comment
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Ron Johnson published on September 2, 2007 12:54 PM.
Re Rec Center #3, this is something to ask the Board about.
Whats happening with Rec Center 3? Nothing is going on at the site.We were promised this center when we bought our house.
To Bob Sansing; Come on Bob, just do as I pointed out to you (in this thread), READ page 1-4 of The 2006 reserve study at the association's office. It says:
“The funding level for the Sun City Anthem Community Association’s reserve fund is 57%"
What you SHOULD be asking is "Why is the association UNDERFUNDED 43%?"
I was man enough to apologize to you when you told me that you were mis-informed by the finance committee, now it's your turn,
WOW! Did we support A.C.E. or just get aced? The egos, the dues increase, the golf fee increase, the use of land, the traffic, the defects in our homes, the constant construction noise and dust,(we live near Inspirada, which we were told would never be built since it's a flood zone and approach to the airport), and the constant fighting since we bought our home four years ago have left a pretty bad taste in our mouths for an association scenerio, not to mention Pulte. What happened to the $3 mil that was rumored to be in our accounts? If we don't own the golf courses, are they paying us rent? Get a decent, affordable restaurant that WILL pay us rent. With the new villages filling up and paying fees, why isn't our bank account increasing? Are we leasing the land to all of the businesses going in or did Pulte sell that land too? Something very curious is happening here and it obviously has nothing to do with the truth.
WOW! Did we support A.C.E. or just get aced? The egos, the dues increase, the golf fee increase, the use of land, the traffic, the defects in our homes, the constant construction noise and dust,(we live near Inspirada, which we were told would never be built since it's a flood zone and approach to the airport), and the constant fighting since we bought our home four years ago have left a pretty bad taste in our mouths for an association scenerio, not to mention Pulte. What happened to the $3 mil that was rumored to be in our accounts? If we don't own the golf courses, are they paying us rent? Get a decent, affordable restaurant that WILL pay us rent. With the new villages filling up and paying fees, why isn't our bank account increasing? Are we leasing the land to all of the businesses going in or did Pulte sell that land too? Something very curious is happening here and it obviously has nothing to do with the truth.
Bob (Sansing) with all due respect to you, to Roz and to a good friend of mine on the finance committee; I must bounce that question right back at you. What proof can you all possibly have that the developer DOESN’T owe us any more money when RMI’s systems of our financial records are in such discord with ours? Each time I have attended a Finance committee meeting they seem to be at their wits end attempting to get straight answers to their questions from RMI’s accounting people. This goes way back to board meetings where Dave Weil was yelling about the same thing and everyone thought he was just being rude. I’m sorry but as good as Roz might be with numbers, if a Rubic’s cube is broken nothing is going to make the pieces fit together. The reserves were assembles based on 5 year old figures, that horse simply won’t run. All of us that voted for Roz knew she had the best of intentions but she can juggle the numbers until the cows come home, if they (RMI) don’t give her the CORRECT numbers to work with how in God’s name will she come up with the TRUE answers. The worst part is that RMI should be doing this job, Roz Berman should not be putting in the man hours she is, this is what we are paying RMI to do. Roz should be looking over their shoulder, but the amount of hours she is working on this mess, with figures that don’t match is shameful
The following posting belongs on this thread:
I have a simple question to ask all of those residents that feel Pulte has left our reserves under funded. What evidence do any of you have that your assertions are true?
I voted for Roz Berman because of her direct experience on the Finance Committee as our reserves expert. She tells me that after reviewing all of the records, Pulte has in fact, left our reserves in compliance with NRS:116 and that they do not owe us any further money for reserves.
So I repeat, what evidence, if any, does anyone have to the contrary?
I thought we elected our Board to ensure that we were being treated fairly by the developer. So why are so many people distrusting what the Board tells us?
Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community
Bob Sansing; I will apologize any time its neccesary because of a misunderstanding. That's what is expected of civil, people who beleive everyone should be treated with dignity. I think we agree there could be a little more of that around these parts.
Norm:
Thanks for your apology. I like to think that we can continue to be friends and cordial to one another.
Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community
Dear Anita:
I am sorry I don't have the answer to your question regarding the Villa's. I don't know what is included in your overall charge per year but I think that information is available from the Finance Committee. I do remember that way back about 4 years ago I asked the then Community Manager, Bill Dively, how the assessments were set for Pinnacle Village and if our over payments were being held separate, he couldn't answer. He suggested that maybe Pinnacle Village should have its' own separate HOA to determine the proper level of assessments per house.
After I moved from Big Sky Village to Pinnacle Village I tried to convince my fellow Pinnacle owners to remove the gate, return the streets to the city of Henderson, and thus saving each homeowner $420 per year. I was unsuccessful because too many of the Pinnacle Village homeowners actually believed that the gate offered real security.
Thank you for being civil in your posting, a refreshing change in this thread.
Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community
Bob Sansing
The Villa Owners pay and additional 2000.00 per year over and above what the single family home owners pay. That is an additional $324,000.00 per year from the Villa Owners for the Villa Owners. How is it Pinnacle is 87% funded for their reserves and the Villas are so short that we are now told our maintenance will be deferred and spread out over 5 years? I await your explaination.
Bob Sansing;
I apologize, apparently it is the finance committee who mis-informed you. Maybe they never read page 1-4 of the 2006 reserve study. But what the heck --- whats a million or more, right?
Norman McCullough
Proud to be serving my neighbors.
Norm:
I got the figure of 69% funded from the Finance Committee during one of the many departmental budget presentations.
The reason Pinnacle Village is funded to the high level is because we pay an additional $420 per year per house over and above what the other single family homes pay each year. That is an additional $94,500 each year from Pinnacle Village for Pinnacle Village.
Lastly, it is nice to have friends in all places, including the Villas.
Have a nice day.
Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community
Bob Sansing;
You said in your post to Ron Johnson above “We are currently at 69% funded”. If you would take the time to go to the associations office, and ask to see the 2006 Reserve Study (ratified by the BOD), on page 1-4 you will find this statement:
“The funding level for the Sun City Anthem Community Association’s reserve fund is 57% the Neighborhoods reserve fund is Point Pleasant 5%, Pinnacle Village 87%, High Mountain 19%, High Mesa 20%, and Canyon Crest 18%”
The only figure I see on this list that is over 70% funded is Pinnacle Village (the neighborhood YOU happen to live in). If you want to critisize Ron Johnson, you might at least get your facts straight.
While your at it, perhaps offer an explination of why your particular neighborhood is so well off financialy. Good luck perhaps? By the way, thanks for admitting you were instrumental in brokering a deal to allow Mike Dixon to be president of this association. I guess it pays to have friends in the right places.
All of this ongoing nonsense of peolpe pointing fingers at each other scares me to death. Have we elected a board of wimps? Whatever happened to mature adults?
Dear Mr./Ms Anonymous:
You said “if he has hopes of reelection to the Board at the next election everyone needs to examine his actions since he knew what was going on and did nothing about it when he served.” I have said to many people during the spring that I would decide on running for the SCA Board for 2008 after I returned from my 3 month drive around America vacation. When I returned I told many of my friends that I have decided NOT to run. Primarily because I expect to continue with our summer long vacations each year and it wouldn’t be proper to take a Board position under those circumstances.
You also said “He is a pompous ass!” You are certainly entitled to your opinion but or Rules and Regulations have a Code of Conduct which you have now violated.
You also said “His assassination of Bob Frank is uncalled for because Bob Sansing is not blameless himself for some of the deeds that were done by the former Board!” I would like to see examples of my “assassination of Bob Frank”. I have asked some tough questions because I think it is important that our SCA VP be held accountable for attending meetings which will allow him to better serve our community. As far as being “not blameless” I will reiterate the fact that I was one person and for the Board to pass anything you need 4 votes, In the case of the S & D eviction, I was only able to get 3, and I truly regret that outcome.
Have a nice day,
Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community
Also what happened to that other(Nine hole course which was Planned???
Chuck, thanks for that correction on "community-owned" golf courses. The interesting issue about those courses is that I believe they were intended to be community owned but before that happened, Pulte sold them for $20 million or so. Now, if an intended asset of the Community is sold off, unlike lots to a developer, should the Community derive some benefit from the sale of that asset? Had Pulte turned that asset over to the Community, as we assume they would as they have done elsewhere, then the Community could have realized $20 million from the sale. Pulte prevented that from happending when they sold the courses. Are we "entitled" under some construction of the law to a portion of the proceeds from that sale?
David B. you would make a fascinating study for psychiatry major. You wish to share the news on your blog and very often do a fine job, however I must say lately, if you will forgive me you seem to be having a melt-down. You reported quite admirably on the insurance meeting and then it is added to here that you missed a huge bit about construction defects huh!!! Not like you ate all. I went back to your site to ask you about it and found that #1. That news item allowed no comments #2 you had blocked me from your site, what had I done I asked myself, then I remembered, I reminded you when you said some people had violated code of conduct, that you too had been guilty of that.. opps! I now banned from commenting on your sight. Now that you see people who used to bring life to your blog have continued conversation here, you jump over and attempt to antagonize and provoke why? Are you really so petty, WOW, RG must have really hit a nerve then
Mary Lee:
I'm not interested in long-winded debates with intolerant people, but I AM interested in correcting flat-out misstatements of fact.
Let's tackle two of the prominent misstatements in your recent post.
The developer NEVER promised to "pass on construction savings" on Recreation Buiilding 3 to the community. Since you were apparently not living here at the time, I shall educate you.
The developer and Favil made an agreement that if an energy co-generation (cogen) facility was not constructed, the amount allocated for that project, $1.375 million, would be contributed by the developer to the Association's general reserve funds. As it became apparent that rising natural gas costs would make a cogen plant unfeasible, the developer was requested, instead, to use some of the cogen money to "green" the design of Rec 3 to produce as much energy savings as possible. The commitment now is that the developer must show how much extra it will be putting into Rec 3 for solar heating and other green improvements, with the remainder going into the Association reserve account. That amount is yet to be determined, but I believe the Finance Committee is making an asumption that half the cogen money will be available for the reserve account.
As to the cost of maintaining Rec 3, it was widely publiczed as far back as several years ago that Rec 3 would be a major factor in requiring future dues increases. I supported Rec 3, and continue to do so, because a commitment was made to our residents, especially those coming into that immediate area.
The lowest figure I have seen for the total annual costs of Rec 3 after it comes on line is $500,000, and I've heard others estimating that it could be as high as $750,000.
Sprry to confuse you with the facts, but I don't think anyone would describe even the lowest estimate as chump change when it comes to affecting our dues.
Too bad, Norman, that you don't understand the purpose of a blog such as mine. My practice is primarily to share news and information with the community, and the number of responses an item generates is irrelevant. Ongoing bitch sessions are obviously welcome here, including gutless anonymous posts, but they are not on my blog.
One thing I find interesting is your apparent glee in thinking that I have suffered a drop-off in visits to the blog. In the week before the last contentious Board meeting, my blog was visited from 2,019 dedicated e-mail addresses. Last week it was visited from 2,028 addresses. The number of actual subscribers in the week prior to the Board meeting was 851. It is currently 857. A number of unsubscriptions, of course, but outweighed by new subscriptions.
The average number of daily dedicated visitors in the week prior to the Board meeting was 425. Last week it was 569. The average length of a visit to the site the week prior to the Board meeting was 3 minutes and 17 seconds. The week after the Board meeting it was 4 minutes and 55 seconds.
And because my reports list the e-mail addresses of site visitors, I know that several people who stated they would no longer visit the site have in fact done so, mostly on more than one occasion.
What's most amusing is what I predicted would happen in one of my posts that actually WAS an editorial: Those who are of a certain ilk have a kind of moral bankruptcy that won't allow them to stick to disagreements over the issues. Not only do they set out to disparage others as persons, rather than for what they perceive to be actions they disagree with, but they also find it necessary to go back in time to label them with personal attacks that they never thought of raising at any time in the past.
Your problem, Norman, in my respectful opinion is that you ask relevant questions, but when you don't like the answers you pretend that you never heard them. It's a shame that the cumulative five hours you, Mary and Anita spent with Roz at our home, sitting in front of her computer to reach consensus on what the issues are that need further research, have all been forgotten. How many hours have you spent in front of Bob Frank's computer?
If any one is wondering why David Berman has so much time to spend here on Ron Johnson's website? The reason may be reveiled in the readership numbers of his own site.
From the last five editorials that were posted by David B. he managed to get a total of 14 responses (3 of the 5 got zero).
Ron Johnson on the other hand got a total of 105 responses from his last three editorials.
Way to go Ron Johnson!! Maybe it pays to "tell it like it is", and tell the people the unvarnished truth, and not a diet of sugar coated bull droppings.
read Dixon'a report in our monthly magazine....how different he speaks now...his statement that he is not working for the people but rather following the rules of the association by-laws etc..made me angry,...while running for election his one concern was for the owners....I can no longer trust anything this man says or does....what made him change his mind....he should be ashamed to face all of us who put our faith in him..no longer....hurray for Mr.Frank...I admire a man with integrity..I feel Dixon has none.....
Is anyone concerned about the emergency Executive BOD meeting today at noon?
Also, Here is a riddle.... what do Favil West, the Berman's(Bob, Roz and David}, Mike Dixon,Bob Sansing, Lainie Berg and Kay Dwyer have in common? Answer: Incredible arrogance!
HERE WE GO AGAIN, ANOTHER ATTACK ON RECREATION CENTER 3! I am not an analyst, but considering the scope of the project, compared to the overall community, I fail to understand how Recreation Center 3 can be the major cause for the proposed massive increases in our fees. How will Mr. Sansing's suggestion of reducing the scale of Recreation Center 3 save us money (maintenance of a pool alone) or does he think that Pulte's 2002 agreement to pass on the construction savings will still be honored? MUST WE, ONCE AGAIN, DIVIDE THE COMMUNITY ON RECREATION CENTER 3; DIDN'T THE LAST ATTEMPT BY MR. FAVIL WEST AND HIS FRIENDS DO ENOUGH DAMAGE?
It's good to see that someone else knows to look at Bob Sansing as having some responsibility in some of the things the Board did WHEN HE WAS ON THE BOARD. If he has hopes of reelection to the Board at the next election everyone needs to examine his actions since he knew what was going on and did nothing about it when he served. He is a pompous ass! His assassination of
Bob Frank is uncalled for because Bob Sansing is not blameless himself for some of the deeds that were done by the former Board!
It's good to see that someone else knows to look at Bob Sansing as having some responsibility in some of the things the Board did WHEN HE WAS ON THE BOARD. If he has hopes of reelection to the Board at the next election everyone needs to examine his actions since he knew what was going on and did nothing about it when he served. He is a pompous ass! His assassination of
Bob Frank is uncalled for because Bob Sansing is not blameless himself for some of the deeds that were done by the former Board!
Sorry Ron, generally the article was very informative.
Thanks for writing.
A great article?
He states: "...fully fund those reserves...." Fully funded does not mean 100%. Reserves at 100% would mean that the Board of Directors could replace every improvement, buildings, sewer lines, underground electrical, paving, tennis courts, bocce ball courts, landscaping, etc. on all land owned by the Association in one year without assessments! How likely that we would need that? Following the completion of Rec Center 3, the chances are even slimmer.
However, he also has a few problems with accuracy. He states: "...operation of two Community-owned golf courses that were subsequently sold by the Developer...." The golf courses were NEVER "Community-owned."
Now as I understand it, Trumpets has not paid rent in 3 years plus 9 months of this year, let’s see who the board members were during that time? Could they be the same people who are saying things like “I’m not looking to place blame”…. “how much are you willing to spend to check back records”, Who was on the board when we allowed Trumpets to rack up almost one quarter of a million in debt? Ah!, ummmm! I think that would be several of the people accusing Bob Frank of misdeeds… There is nothing like attempting to throw suspicion away from yourselves, to take the focus away from important issues at hand and take ones eye off the ball.
Let’s stop this nonsense of throwing mud and take care of what is important; Bob Sansing, you know full well that the residents living next to rec. center three want and expect a full recreation center. That is what they were promised and there is no reason that they should not have it. If our board needs to curb their ridiculous spending waste to accommodate these things by cutting out things like $34,000 decorators when we have bides from professionals that were far less costly, $5,000 investigations to tell us how to light the parking lot more brightly and so on, so bit it.
Former board members Bob Sansing and David Berman seem to always be complaining about others and never wanting to own up to their past mistakes and reponsiblities. Did they not fail in their duty to evict Trumpets operators before they accumulated hundreds of thousands of debt, and cost us more hundreds of thousands in operating costs? Did they ever demand that Pulte make the reseve fund whole or even question the quality of the reserve fund study?
No one seems to remember anything specific that Bob Sansing accomplished as a board member except to constantly remind us he is "proud to have served". Perhaps both Berman and Sansing realize that ending the secrecy and going after the money S&D and Pulte owes us might be embarassing, and maybe even dangerous for them?
Bob Sangsing; Apparently you don't understand what reserves are meant to accomplish. They are supposed to be funded at a high enough level to accumulate interest that can be used to HELP the association finance future expenditures. At the end of this year, the association reserves are expected to be under funded $1,915,798 (or 36% of recommended amount). In three years (end of 2010), the association reserves are expected to be underfunded $3,299,393 (or 42% of the recommended amount). There is and old saying, "When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING! Maybe the BOD can explain to you why the association reserves are going in the wrong direction. Maybe they can even tell you how long it will take to eventually be underfunded 100% (broke). Mathematically it looks like this (increasing 2% a year from 36%). 36-38-40-42-44-46-48-50 and so on. So we go broke in 2039. Hey we'll both be dead by then, so why worry about it huh? Of course my grand kids are going to be real mad at me. But why worry about them either?
And why worry about a few laws broken (NRS 116 for example). It's only money right? Problem is -- ITS OUR MONEY.
Ron:
You missed a few facts in your article. If you read NRS:116 carefully it doesn't specify the exact percentage that a developer leave to the Association upon transition. We are currently at 69% funded which means if 69% of all reserved items needed replacing within one year we could do it. In most home owner associations, 60% reserves are considered very good. When Pulte went through transition with us there was no reserve study done for Pinnacle Village or the Villas. When the reserve study was completed in 2006 our Board, using regression analysis, determined the amount of money that Pulte owed SCA based upon the 2006 study.
The primary reason for the proposed increase is to cover the costs of Rec Center #3, it's reserve requirements and replenishing our total reserves to a 90% level.
There are many ways to lower our future expenses, from accepting a 69% reserve level, to eliminating the outdoor pool at rec. center #3, etc.
We can also increase our revenues via the new restaurant, selling sponsorships to new TV99 programming and selling new types of advertisements in a newspaper.
As a previous SCA BoD Director I have never seen anyone work harder as treasurer than Roz Berman. She is an expert in reserve studies and tracking the money. As with anything else, there is a price to pay in investigating the past. How much are we willing to spend to uncover it? $100,000.00 or $1,000,000.00, you tell me?
Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community
I would like to warn every one - if David Berman should ever offer to do your taxes, don’t take him up on the offer. I think he is “mathematically challenged”. This is what he told Bill Way on Aug. 29, 2007
“Several years ago, former Finance Committee chair Dave Weil developed a computer model that has been remarkably accurate in its predictions to date. The model predicted, among other things, that it would take about $1,100 to $1,200 a year to make us self-sustaining without developer contributions. The annual increases over the next three years that were discussed at the Assessment Scenarios Workshop would put us over that amount by 2010, but those greater amounts might not be necessary after 2008, so it might turn out that the figures actually are a bit lower.”
David did not tell Mr. Way, that at the end of the year 2010 when our dues are predicted to be $1,438 that the association’s reserve fund will still only be 58% funded. He also failed to tell Mr. Way that it is predicted at that time our association reserves will be UNDERFUNDED $3,299,393.
So Mr. Way, if you are reading this, and you would like to see the numbers, call me. I’ll even copy them for you (at the price of $0.25 per page naturally).
The Villa Owners have been fighting this reserve underfunding battle for a year now. We have been steamrolled, stonewalled,told to shut up and sit down, and our dues were increased by $500.00 in 2007. Now perhaps the rest of the Association will show some interest in underfunded reserves. Co-incidently current projection is a $498.00 per unit shortage by 2010. The current recommendation is to increase dues by $166.00 per year for the next 3 years in order to soften the blow for the residents. No such consideration was given for the Villa Owners. We were told the units had to be painted in 2008 and that was why we had to put in the extra $500.00 immediately. NOW that we SHOULD have the money, and the painting price is at or below the funded price,we are told that the Villas wil NOT be painted next year but will be spread out over the next 5 years.
Once again Ron you have written an excellent article. What I fear, even if the board majority would agree to rethink their stance on looking at what Pulte owes, which I personally hate to sound pessimistic about but with their stubborn mindset, can’t see happening , is the consequences of the agreement that Kay Dwyer and Favil West signed. The attorney that I took it to said although it was not impossible to overturn, it would be very difficult. They had essentially signed away all of the villa’s rights to go after Del Webb/Pulte forever. So if the $241,000 for the villas & Pinnacle is not enough, it’s “so sad, to bad for all the “folks” who live there. He added that they have “one heck of a case against our board of directors”, and was willing to take it on a contingency he felt so strongly about it.
Thank you Ron Johnson for shining this spotlight into the dark hidden corners that are known around these parts as The Association's Dirty Laundry Closet. Now just like roaches in the sun light, watch the previous board members (including David Berman) run for cover.