THE ACTIVITY CENTER RENO vs.
THE AQUATIC & FITNESS CENTER RENO
A Factual Account History
Several Homeowners contributed to the following essays, some of whom have since moved away or sadly, passed away...
The 2020 Activity Center Renovation Project and how it was orchestrated was not in compliance with our governing documents.
Read below to learn about its' issues.
Then read below to learn as a comparison, about the credible ways the 2011 Fitness Center Renovation Project was handled. (The second vote was successful.)
In summary, the 2011 Fitness Center Project was a result of a failed, expensive $3.2 million dollar project that was defeated. The second time it came up, it was a result of inviting the "vote no' team (engineers, designers, etc.) to join the committee and create a compromise.The result was a much better building for significantly less money.
I.
The 2020 Activity Center Renovation Project
There was a Court Trial with the AZ Real Estate Office of Administrative Hearings on the Activity Center Renovation project. It was about the non - compliance to our governing documents, Master Declaration 6.7 requiring a separate Resident Vote For or Against a liquor license & business proposition within the facility, due to a change in use of common areas.
Background Information
A dispute with the AZ Department of Real Estate had been filed in regard to the Activity Center's renovation Proposal and Vote.
The Court was asked to rule that converting square footage of existing common area to a state licensed Wine & Beer Cafe/Bar is considered "a substantial change of use of common area... including a business use", which had required a Resident Vote, as per our Master Declaration Article 6.7. It ought to have been placed on the March 2020 Ballot (as a separate vote), but this was not done.
Our leaders were asked to participate in mediation for this non-compliance in lieu of litigation, but they declined. Because they declined this dispute complaint was filed with the AZ Real Estate Board and as a result of their decision, it cost the community extra money to the tune of more than $10K in attorney fees.
At a previous meeting where this was being discussed a board member stood up and stated "This frivolous lawsuit is costing the community $10,000!" Again, if our leadership had agreed to mediate, it would have cost nothing since there was an offer of paying for mediation out of a resident's pocket. If they had followed our rulings as outlined, it would have cost them nothing. (Note: Our leadership is customarily advised by HOA attorneys who interpret our governing documents in specific ways, which may be subjective and questionable.)
The Benefit of Mediation
Mediation is less adversarial and less expensive. The parties come together to negotiate and resolve their conflict. Even though the parties are in dispute, both seek settlement and are willing to open the lines of communication.
Click here to read more about the benefits of HOA mediation.
Click here to read about the court trial on the liquor license.
II.
The 2020 Activity Center Renovation Project
The Campaign & Ballot Verbiage
Many residents found the March 2020 Ballot which contained only a Vote for the Board’s Spending Authority, without a Vote for the actual plan itself (with possible alternative options for the residents to select before one was placed on the ballot) not exactly fair. Many residents found the proclamation by our leadership in one of the zoom meetings prior to the vote, stating "If residents did not vote 'Yes' for the dollar amount on the renovation project, there would be nothing built." to be a stretch of the truth. The Ballot language was written to entice a 'Yes' vote with propaganda verbiage. And, the Ballot for the renovation project was put forth to residents at an inopportune time when the country went into a historic pandemic shutdown and residents were out of the loop.
A group of Homeowners urged others to "Vote No" on the Ballot, but due to the timing of the pandemic and the tremendous effort by the administration to back-lash these Homeowners, it was to no avail.
Many residents remember how the community benefited when the association instead worked amicably with opposing views for the Fitness Center remodel in 2012 (after an expensive large-scaled renovation proposal was voted down by the community).
( Scroll down for an historical account of that event.)
III.
The 2011 Aquatic & Fitness Center Renovation Project:
The Benefits to Opposing Voices: Differing Views Can Bring Forth Better Results
Today we have a well planned Aquatic & Fitness Center. It was through the result of diverse views coming together in 2011. A less expensive and more functional design than the $3.2 million original plan that had been presented for a community vote (and then successfully, voted down) was created. We will refer to the original plan that was up for a vote, as Plan #1. A group of Homeowners appealed to residents to “Vote No” on this one plan proposal and helped to defeat it through several actions, like emailing letters to their friends, telephoning residents, writing an editorial in the Oro Valley Explorer and distributing flyers to homes.
During this “Vote No” campaign the group also utilized the expertise of architects and engineers to draw up some alternative concepts. They were offered to the AFC Design Committee and our leaders who were putting forth Plan #1. Despite many good ideas, those who were making the decisions did not care to utilize any of those concepts or save in the costs.
After Plan #1 was (successfully) defeated, a new AFC Design Committee was formed, comprised of different residents who had previous experience in the design and construction fields, including some of the “Vote No” team. All of them had varying thoughts and concerns, but worked together amicably with the assistance of three architect and engineer firms who contributed their plans essentially pro bono. In the end three plan options were presented in the Auditorium with over 150 people in attendance, that addressed most of the concerns of the “Vote No” group and honored the good ideas from the original Plan #1. Everyone involved truly collaborated with positive discourse of all sorts of contributions. The community was able to then view new options for a plan A, B or C with varying costs. The final plan proposed for a resident vote, chosen by the committee after getting much feedback from the audience, was designed by the original Del Webb architect of Sun City's facilities and grounds! It wasn't the least expensive option of the three, but it wasn't the highest either.
What we gained for our community included the following:
Saved the palm trees in front and left adequate parking spaces. (We would have lost a number of spaces in Plan #1.)
Changed a too high, extravagant and expensive entrance design in Plan #1 to one that fit within our current architectural genre. This is mandated in our governing documents but had been ignored in Plan #1.
Beautiful windows facing the mountains in the workout area - instead of facing the pool which was in Plan #1.
Money was saved as the second plan, Plan #2, cost to the tune of about more than one million dollars LESS.
Moving the old hot tub from an indoor, poorly ventilated room to its present location. (Plan #1 delayed any hot tub improvements to another day.)
Lockers were moved next to the pool. In Plan #1 they had planned to leave them where they were which meant swimmers had to walk through the workout room to get to the lockers and bathroom.
And more items for less money!
NOTE
The excerpt above was written by former Board President & Homeowner of 35 years. He described his experience with the community below:
"We "old timers" refer to the current Activity Center as the Social Hall. I was an active member of the Activity Fitness Center project design, the first renewal of The Views Restaurant and the doubling of the woodworking shop, the sewing room and the clay club facilities. I was a Board President and was responsible for the creation of the Capital Fund concept. As a mechanical design engineer, I was an instrumental participant in the rebuilding and conversion to reclaimed water for our golf course. I have lately been perturbed on witnessing how the Capital Fund is being misused and feel regretful that I instigated its creation when serving as Board President." ~ Robert Rubino
IV.
Ability to Freely Speak
NOTE
In 2011 it was not possible to use a facility room or community grounds to gather and speak about the affairs of the community. However, the new AZ HOA House Bill #2158, which passed unanimously in the House in April of 2022, which went into effect on Sep 24, 2022, will now allow this. But in 2011, an opposition group had to find off-site options for their voices to be heard.
In 2011, our leadership did not try to stop the group of residents who voiced their views on the proposed $3.2 million renovation for the Fitness Center. But in 2020 when these same residents objected to the $3.5 million ACR proposal, rebuttals were mailed to the community en masse and disparaging reports about these residents were written in the Tipster, labeling them as "The Disrupters".
The actual Plan #1 for the Activity Fitness Center renovation was put on the Ballot with a For or Against box to check off and the residents were able to vote on the Plan itself. Then due to the efforts of this group of residents, the project proposal was successfully voted down. Afterward, discussions of alternative ideas filled the auditorium with over 150 people and enthusiasm grew. As a result we got three new design options under a Plan #2 within a matter of three months time. One of the options was chosen by residents and proposed for a formal vote by the community.
After Plan #2 was passed, our leadership discussed implementing a policy that would allow use of facility rooms and written communications among residents. This seemed like a positive step. Unfortunately, the policy they ultimately created made it virtually impossible to accomplish the goal. It contained the high hurdle of requiring 250 households to sign a petition of agreement that they have the ‘same’ opposing view. It required a formal debate and forum platform with the board, who would be in opposition to the petitioners. This "Voicing of Opinions" policy (BOD Policy #COM-003) had the opposite effect by actually slowing down and highly restricting residents from voicing any disagreements to board proposals! And - that was their intention, to stop, quiet and limit any opposition to their ultimate agendas. This modas-operandi is still happening and is even more apparent today.
Diverse views weren't encouraged or permitted after 2020. Residents now however, through the new AZ HOA House Bill #2158 will be able to have access to facilities and grounds to communicate their thoughts amongst each other. People with differing perspectives will be able to assemble to inform and educate each other, on their own. This could go a long way to create diversity and creative thought. Everyone deserves a voice.
The new HB#2158 will override and render this Board Policy #COM-003 as obsolete. If it is not removed from our governing documents or is not accurately revised to correspond with the law, it will be rendered invalid.
UPDATE Jun 2022
A new #COM-003 was revised to be in correlation with the actual bill. But an attorney was not consulted in its writing, so it unfortunately contains several conditions that do not accurately correspond to the bill. Therefore, in these stipulations, the bill itself still overrides this board policy. As Dennis Legere who works at the State Capital on new HOA bills, states: ' An HOA board can compose board policies until they are blue in the face, but if written in non- compliance to the law, the law as written prevails, not their policies.'
V.
2020 Activity Center Renovation Project
Why Rush a Renovation Project During Covid?
The association rushed ahead to begin an extensive and costly renovation project during a historic pandemic at a time when residents were caught in a vulnerable situation. Most weren't keeping up with the news. Having this proposal pass was the main agenda of the association's 2020 - 2021 fiscal year, and to many, it was handled unreasonably.
The Importance of Outdoor Meeting SpaceThe Kiva Patio is a very large and functional outdoor space. Many residents became concerned that the expensive $1.3 million Kiva Meeting Hall extension structure which eliminates the patio square footage space by three-quarters, ought to have been re-thought after covid hit. The world had changed significantly. But our leaders moved forward on an out-dated pre-covid design proposal without a re-examination of our new needs. Note also that the Kiva Patio was considered a common-use area, which also required a separate Resident Vote via Mas. Dec. 6.7.
Even though prior and after the vote on the ACR, the 2020 -2021 leaders had stated that revisions to the designs which could cut costs on the project would be considered and made. This however did not occur exactly as promised. Some selective ideas that had been presented may have been implemented later on during the construction phases, which did cut down on some costs, but the expenditures to the overall budget dollar figure of the project - off the top, were not reduced as a result. You can view the construction budget estimate spreadsheet here. It accounted for a 30% contingency, which by industry standards is considered very high.
After the vote for the price of the project was won and accepted by residents, 2 resident designers had volunteered to present several additional and alternative design concepts. One was a proposal for a flexible indoor/outdoor pergola type of meeting space for the exterior Kiva Patio area, in lieu of erecting an expensive building extension called the Kiva Lecture Hall, with floor to roof windows. It should be noted here, that the Kiva Lecture Hall structure design contained a complicated (roof connecting) parapet wall system, which are usually highly problematic not only to build, but difficult to maintain. They potentially cause future roof leakage issues. So, the free-standing flexible indoor/outdoor pergola concept with a moveable ceiling, was a smart solution for our newly changed lifestyle needs. And, it did not overtake three-quarters of the Kiva patio space with an oversized extension. As it turned out, constructing this complex parapet wall did pose some issues. Maybe that's where some of the savings on items that were cut back, had been used.
The alternative concepts presented by the volunteer designers hadn't the opportunity to be presented to the community because they were only permitted to be shown to a post-vote group formed by the administration called the ACR "Lead Team". Naming this group as a "lead team" allowed them to keep their meetings closed to residents and it was a way to get around the open resident meeting law. This team consisted of four people who included leaders of our association and the general manager who, incidentally they discussed would possibly act as the general supervisor representing the association, during the construction phases of the project. At board meetings several residents had asked these questions: 1. Was he qualified to manage the construction of a large commercial project for the community and 2. Was he going to be paid an additional salary for this job?
To re-iterate, the formation of a "Team" is not designated as a valid "Committee" in our governing documents. By labeling this group in this manner, they were able to keep their meetings private and closed to all residents and did have them regularly scheduled or advertised. This has kept residents at bay to their decision-making, revisions, changes, costs and management to the project during its construction phases. One must wonder why this 'closed door' operation was important to our leadership and what was being hidden. It is unfortunate that these types of proceedings have been strategically kept closed to residents.
As stated, several people were apprehensive that our head of mgmt. hadn't the industry experience to supervise this large highly-priced commercial project with the construction company. And as stated, they thought he could potentially be double-dipping in salary compensation, which denotes a conflict of interest. This action has not been confirmed as valid information - even though there were several discussions held on the subject in prior board and committee meetings. At this point, it is something to inquire about and confirm.
As far as the AC project, many residents were concerned about replacing the extent of the Kiva Patio with a large enclosed building that may not be as useful to the community in a post-pandemic world, in lieu of the patio's open common area space. Our association though charged through very quickly with these project designs during a historic pandemic shutdown, without allowing them to evolve and adapt for our current and changing times. We have to ask why there was such a rush to push it all forward at that specific time and what was the motivation in doing so.
VI.
The 2020 Activity Center Renovation Project
The ACR "Vote No" Group's Purpose
A “Vote No” Group of dedicated residents informed the community that more than one design option for the Activity Center Renovation Project were needed with varying price points.This group created a very detailed and informative website, with some alternative design concepts presented as examples of how the project could cut costs. Our GM took statements word for word from their site and refuted them with false denigrating declarations via mass emails to the residents of the community. This will not be possible or as successful with the new AZ Senate HOA Bill HB #2158, that will give HOA residents freedom of speech and the power to use their voices to fairly state their views to others.