Page 2 - REBUTTALS to the Weekly (TWISCOV), Monthly
Community News & Emails from the GM & Board
Facts vs. Suppresion
The community news reports you get are not always forthright. The words you read can buckle meanings and suppress the truth to suit association agendas. Read below for the factual information.
The words in the July 6, 2023 TWISCOV message are questioned as follows:
"TWISCOV tells us about how we’re moving forward with Copper Health. BUT the litigation is moving forward too. The case has not been settled or dismissed. It would be helpful for the community to know whether our insurance is paying our legal fees and would pay our damages if we lose or settle the case. PLEASE inform the community about the results of the insurance review mentioned by the General Manager. He said he would keep us informed. If insurance isn’t covering, then our financial outlook is affected, maybe significantly." ~ Written by a resident attorney
Comment From A Resident:
"Oh my, moving forward? With what funds? See the $2,224,700 DEFICIT on page 7 of the last posted Monthly Financials from May 2023 attached below.
There will now be a push for a new Capital Contribution increase, but this will take some time to rebuild and do we not have other items of need in our community? Is this the way a community is to be run... spend too much and then go begging for more all the while telling the homeowners we have plenty of money and this will save us money in the long run?
I would love to hear from those of you who voted for his purchase based on the scare tactics presented by the Board about a Drug Rehab 'neighbor' moving in there and how the Welcome Center is falling down (my words) so this will be the perfect solution. Is it really? I believe we were told that there was an inspection on the Welcome Center. Can we see the result of that please?
Lastly, there's this: "There is still no determination of the ongoing litigation at this time". My non-legal background but common sense tells me this is going to go one of (3) ways. It will get settled out of court meaning WE will pay, however since the time it took to finally submit our 'answer' means to me that there were undoubtedly efforts and those came up short. So, the Judge will determine if this goes to Discovery and ultimately trail. Trial can go one of two ways... we win, we lose. If we lose, it's even more money.
It is time to cut bait as they say. We paid way too much for this building for offices and studios when it was IMPROVED for a medical building to bring in revenue." ~ Anonymous
The words in the July 6, 2023 TWISCOV message are questioned as follows:
The news reports from our association are not always forthright. The words can convert the meanings and suppress the truth to 'suit agendas'.
i.e.; The statement :
"The Copper Center (CC) was purchased with 70% approval of residents..."
-
This statement is not accurate, if you do the numbers. In fact our community is actually divided by 50% (and that's not just on the Copper Health purchase). 70% was the total no. of people who had voted, not the no. who approved.
Here are the numbers:
-
Out of 2488 houses, 2469 are eligible to vote (this no. was given at a meeting explaining the vote). The official results for the Jan 12, 2023 Vote on the Copper Health purchase says:
"The Vote was approved by 1287, against 568."
-
The approval no. of 1287 is 52.1% of the 2469 (eligible votes). 70% of the 2469 eligible votes is 1728, not 1287, a difference of 441 votes. The 70% average is written as an EXAGGERATION to make it appear like there was an OVERWHELMING vote for the purchase, when in fact it was pretty equally divided ( 52% for 48% against).
-
Also, a vote on a bldg. purchase of this magnitude rightfully ought to have used a 2/3rds vote instead of a simple majority. If it had, the count would have fallen short by 359 votes. 2/3rds of the 2469 homes puts the required no. of voters (quorum) at 1646, not the 1235 they used in a simple majority. A loophole on the quorum no. was intentionally found to increase the chances of "a WIN".
i.e.; The statement:
"The (Copper Center) move will also solve financial and spatial issues at the Artisan Center, with some studios volunteering to move to the CC, opting for more space."
-
This begs to differ.
-
There were 2 other plans designed (1 from the architect, 1 from a resident) that hadn't been considered or studied further for the Artisan Ctr. that cost LESS and provided the required extra space which kept the studios intact. The clubs preferred to remain together as a group to preserve their creative collaboration and the Gift Shop was adamant about not moving to a separated location. These 'volunteers' were in fact persuaded and encouraged to relocate, to promote the Copper Health purchase. They did not initially agree to move to the 'CC'. The statement written gives the wrong impression of what occurred, and it was all to meet the agenda: "Buy the Copper Health Building at All Costs".
-
The news reports from our association are not always forthright. The words can twist the meanings and suppress the truth to suit agendas. The words of the board pres. are refuted as follows:
i.e.; The statement:
"Moving forward, the new Copper Center Renovation Task Force will review the best options for future occupants of the CC."
-
Some pertinent questions are:
1. Why move forward with work while our association is locked into an unresolved litigation on the building?
2. What is the budget for the renovation project?
3. What are the costs for the demolition work required? (i.e.; an outline of expenses for demo & plumbing for aprox. 20 bathrooms and patient rooms)
4. Where will the money sources come from, before any work is contracted?
Comments From Residents:
"The comment, "This is why it is important that everyone in the community votes." is true, and I will add... EVERYONE needs to get involved, read the budgets & financials and keep up. I am still confused about the "simple majority" method of voting being used for this massive purchase which put our Capital Fund in the hole at over a $2,000,000 DEFICIT. The building did not fit under the 'annexation' rule in our governing documents because a long time ago it was originally within the Sun City Vistoso footprint. The lot changed hands many times for a minor $10. fee, which is puzzling too. But they did it - and so here we are with this Big Building set up as a Medical Facility with 35+ private patient rooms and baths that any number of Medical Businesses could have moved into right away and started making money. Only now we have to demolish all those patient rooms that will drive up the costs for our intended use of office space. I love my home and Community here, but this is really troubling and worrisome to me and a lot of people I talk to." ~ Anonymous
"These comments made by our Board President have bothered me ever since I read them. He states in his June 19 Message, speaking of the Activity Center vote, "Residents overwhelmingly voted for the A.C. project with 66% approval." The official results show it was approved by 1,121 votes. Of a possible 2,478 eligible voters at the time, that is only 45.2% (NOT 66%). The same is true of his next statement speaking of the Copper Center, "Overwhelmingly approved with 70% voting for the purchase." Of the 2,469 eligible voters, the results show 1,287 approved the purchase, that is 52% of our residents (NOT 70%). These are the official results folks can check out on our community website. Why do we residents allow this type of reporting? Our governing documents need to be revised. It's not right to let a simple majority (could have been one vote) approve a project like the A.C. renovation or the Copper Center Bldg. both over $4,500,000 each. We as residents are at least entitled to the truth from our Board Members." ~ Anonymous
"I wasn't here for the AC vote, so for most of my time living here I could not use it. I did not know that they did a simple majority for that vote too. Yes, we need change... 1. These huge capital "improvement" projects really do not need to be so huge. (That is what they were proposing for the Artisan Center remodel too, if I recall). And 2. These ballot proposals need to be set at a 2/3rds vote, period. But the board follows the Bylaw Article Sec 4.3 / Quorum that says 600 votes constitutes a 'quorum', which is the number of people needed to vote to make the vote valid. A simple majority vote of that quorum (50% + 1 of those who vote) wins then at a minimum of 301 people. That is a lot of money for only half of those voters in the community who turn out to vote, to be able to approve it. WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT IF ONLY 600 PEOPLE VOTE, 301 PEOPLE CAN SAY YES TO SPEND $4.5 MILLION DOLLARS! YIKES!" ~ Anonymous
"In light of recent developments on the condition of our Welcome Center, our suggestion is to proceed as follows: 1). Stop all planning and changes to the Copper Health Building. 2). Negotiate with Daniel Holdings on their purchase of the Copper Health building along with a resolution to the law suit. 3). If negotiations fail with Daniel Holdings, immediately list the Copper Health Building “For Sale” with a licensed Real Estate agent as a properly zoned and constructed health care facility."
~ Anonymous
"A former BOD president, today posted about our previous capital intensive projects that we implemented such as golf course improvements, expansion of the Aquatic Fitness Center and acquisition of the Welcome Center (WC). I agree with him that these were good investments. He then likens the Copper acquisition to these previous projects and thinks it is an investment in the future just as the previous ones he mentioned. I would add a comment to his post, but he shut off comments, and so I am answering with my own post. There is a wholesale difference between these previous projects and Copper. First, residents and decision makers then actually knew what the project was to be used for. Not here. The process was to buy it and figure out its use later, as the task force now is trying to do. Second, those past projects passed with residents and decision-makers having an accurate picture of the facts. Not here. Instead, the important info promoting the vote and swaying residents turns out to be inaccurate. We don't need the WC and administration to move. We don't need to spend $4.7 million to renovate the WC as was cited then. Finally, the ballot presented only the $4.5 million price tag for just the building's purchase. It did not mention the cost, then estimated to be $2.7 million to renovate this new acquisition. The cynic in me tells me that if they had included the renovation cost in the ballot, it would not have passed. It was presented as a $4.5 million cost. In fact, it will cost much more with renovation. So, while I agree with the BOD member's assessment of previous purchases, I disagree that this acquisition is in our community's interest. It is decimating our reserves, making it impossible to implement other capital projects that current - and future - residents desire far more than they want a 22,000 square foot building, the need for which is far from clear." ~ D. Siegel