Sun City Anthem

Nevada Know How (Archives--Page One)

Nevada Know How

(Archives--Page One)

94156-004-99543DCF.jpg (354×450)
Carson City State Capital 

New Nevada Laws

as of

January 1, 2017

law.jpg (330×364)
The new year is bringing some new laws for Nevadans.
cannabis-marijuana-cartoon.jpg (1024×1024)
Recreational marijuana became legal for people 21 and over starting January 1st after voters approved a ballot initiative in November.
It won’t be available for purchase just yet at retail pot shops.
The Department of Taxation must first adopt regulations to license and regulate the industry.
It's still illegal to consume the substance in public places and people who violate that law could face a misdemeanor citation.
Consumers also can't buy the substance from retail dispensaries yet unless they have a valid medical marijuana card.

137640_600.jpg (600×430)
A law requiring background checks on private party gun sales "technically" took effect on January 1st, although the Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt stated it's unenforceable because the FBI is required to make the background check, yet has stated they are unwilling to conduct them.
Voters approved Question 1 requiring criminal background checks for private gun sales in November.
The FBI will not perform the background because Nevada has its own system to check databases through the Department of Public Safety’s central repository.

Language in the ballot initiative specified that background checks will not be done through the state system.

a8dbe339c6ff9401a0d95b663bf5746e.jpg (736×736)

Owners of mopeds are required to register their low-speed motorized vehicles with the Department of Motor Vehicles and pay a one-time fee of $33, not including other fees for a license plate, inspection and taxes.

The law passed by the 2015 Legislature was billed as an anti-theft measure.

The DMV began registering mopeds in November, 2015, and in one month 300 were registered statewide.

Mopeds do not have to be registered until they are used on public roads.

police-body-camera.jpg (1291×726)

Nevada Highway Patrol Officers will wear body cameras as part of their uniform, but not until February.

The state Board of Examiners in January will vote on a $1.2 million contract to purchase the equipment for about 450 officers who have routine contact with the public.

SimplifyYourMeds_PrescriptionSynchronization.png (400×400)

People with chronic illnesses who take multiple medications will have an easier time managing their drugs under a new law that provides for synchronization of prescriptions.

The law allows for partial fills to “synchronize” refill schedules for ongoing medications.
Autism+Spectrum+Disorder.png (570×530)
Children with autism will have access to more treatment under a new law that doubles the maximum annual benefit provided by insurance programs to $72,000 from $36,000.

occupationaldisease.jpg (595×335)

Lung and heart ailments suffered by Nevada firefightersarson investigators and police officers are presumed related to their occupation for purposes of industrial insurance, making those responders eligible for compensation depending on their length of service.

A new provision takes into account personal behaviors such as tobacco use.

Under the new law, frequent or regular use of tobacco within one year of filing a claim for compensation or departing from a doctor’s prescribed plan of care within three months, excludes a person from the benefit of “conclusive presumption” that their illness was caused by health hazards associated with their job.

Association President Clarifies
Voting Requirement for Pulte Law Suit 

Acknowledges Requirement of

3,573 "Yes" Votes

for Litigation to Proceed


Dear Residents, the following is from my remarks at the December 1, 2016 Board meeting:

I am concerned about the level of misstatement and misunderstanding in the community over the Board’s authorization of a CD lawsuit against Pulte. I have  gotten several phone calls at home, received a number of emails, and have been approached by others with concerns. Several mentioned having been totally confused by reading community blogs. Some have expressed a need for every last piece of financial detail of Liberty Center expense before deciding how to vote.  Others wanted a prediction of the outcome of litigation.Some of this confusion arises from the ratification request sent to members. The Association is restricted in how it presents the issues in this ratification process, so the communication had to sound neutral – and thus maybe confusing.  We were required to warn about the possibility of losing and then, under some circumstances, paying the opposition’s legal costs. All of that has led to degree of uncertainty by some.Because the Board has taken action in this matter, I can make these statements:
  • The Board authorized this action because SCA has a history with CD claims, one of which required litigation, and a perfect record, thus far, of success.
  • When you think someone owes you $2 M through no fault of your own and they refuse to pay you, the reality is this: if you want to be paid, litigation becomes your only recourse.
  • We remain in mediation with Pulte about a possible settlement without requiring the full litigation process.
  • We have a legal obligation to explain to members what MIGHT happen if we lose a lawsuit. As a result, some seem to fear the consequences of losing in court. Having a career experience with civil litigation, I know that 95% of cases, historically, resolve themselves without a trial. I don’t have the statistics for CD lawsuits, but I expect that figure to be no lower and likely greater.
  • No one can predict with certainty the outcome of litigation. If they could, there would be no lawsuits. Every case would quickly settle and no one would sue. That's one reason we can't answer questions about our recovery probabilities. 
  • With seven figures at risk and a miniscule statistical chance of losing at trial, if there is one, balancing the reward against the risk is an easy mental leap.
  • Our counsel is handling this on a contingency fee basis. The firm is fronting the costs.  It will get paid only if it wins. The attorneys for Pulte will get paid regardless of the outcome.
  • We can bemoan the cost of litigation and the fact it will eat into any recovery, but there are always costs to litigation.
There is one more comment I can make. No one has yet explained or argued that SCA has done anything wrong which would deny a recovery. Somebody dropped the ball on Liberty Center and it wasn’t us.  We had to fix it and we want our money back.

People can decide for themselves, but the Board recommends a Yes vote. We need residents to vote and send in or drop off their ballots by 1/5/17 for the 1/6/17 vote count.   NRS 116 instructs the Board to seek a majority of votes allotted to confirm the Board’s decision to file this CD matter This means 3,573 YES votes.  If you haven’t received your ballot or need a replacement please contact the Administration Office at Anthem Center (702) 614-5815.  Once your ballot has been cast, it cannot be changed.
Please vote now and spread the word.

Rex Weddle
SCA Board President
  1. From Barbara Opinions

    I went into the office today to change my ballot and was told that I couldn't do that. So I asked to speak with Sandy and another woman came out and said they were not allowing anyone to change their ballot.

    She wasn't very nice and said that we can't change our vote in the presidential election and the same was true for Sun City Anthem.

    I told her voting was still on and she said they had early voting in the presidential election also and you couldn't change. What a crock of............
  2. Barbara, the left hand doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing. One Board members says you can, then the President of the Association, says you can't through his recent memo.

    I personally don't think this is over....that this Board will somehow decide through a legal loophole to go forth with this litigation without the necessary 3,573 votes NRS 116 has required.

    I want to be wrong, but history has taught us that you cannot place much confidence in "the right thing" when it comes to those who have been elected to represent the Sun City Anthem community.

    Call me a skeptic, but also call me a realist.

    This community has been set-up before, and my gut feeling says we're sadly about to be again.

    We shall see if my concerns are well-founded.

    Something "stinks in Denmark" ... and the odor may be reaching Sun City Anthem governance.

    As far as that particular individual, that comment that lady made was rude and sarcastic.

    My suggestion is that you find out her name, and file a complaint with the association MAKING SURE you ASK TO HAVE YOUR REPORT PLACED IN HER PERSONNEL FILE.

    When "raise time" comes, it may have a bearing on her income...and...send out a message that THEY WORK FOR YOU...THAT SERVICE IS THEIR JOB...and...that anything short of that, will cost them advancement.
    1. From Barbara Opinions

      Thanks for the reply.

      Next time I am asked to vote for something, I will wait until I have all the facts before making the wrong decision.

      That includes the election that is coming up, although, I am sure whomever I vote for will not win.

      It will be one of the cronies of the current board.

      They have stifled the people that want change. Anyone would have to hesitate to even run and spend money on their campaign since they can't seem to win.

      Kind of like running for president of the US if you are 30.

      You can run and you can win but you can't serve, because you are too young.

    2. Barbara, I know what you've said is a "hard pill to swallow", but there are so few who care to make any meaningful changes.

      Those that do, are belittled, insulted, and mocked at every opportunity by those who "need a system" in order to exist.

      We tried desperately to make positive change a year ago, and look at the result ?

      Things got WORSE.

      So when people allow their retirement savings squandered, despite proof that it is, and then continue to allow it to happen, the only conclusion that can be drawn is the PEOPLE DON'T CARE until something "big" comes up.

      ....As in DUES INCREASE in 2017, and another one projected in 2018.

      At the same time a General Manager is paid $250,000 + $20,000 bonus...and...from what I have heard will be another 4% raise in 2017 ($10,000).

      In addition we have a Chief Financial Officer that is also being paid $200,000.

      Add that up, and JUST TWO INDIVIDUALS will account for $480,000 of OUR DUES in 2017.

      That translates to EACH UNIT OWNER paying $67.19 of their 2017 dues for just those two individuals. (plus benefits).

      The City Manager of Henderson makes a total of $186,000 to my knowledge.

      It's baffling !

      When you have someone question WHY IS THE DUES GOING UP?

      My suggestion is to look at that person square in the eye and first ask them if they voted, and for whom, and WHY?

      If they say "no" , or voted for any of this existing bunch, or can't give you a reason as to why they voted the way they did, just say...


      And a party to celebrate a $1,500,000 loss on a building that hasn't been opened for over a year, tops it all.

      It's an insult to anyone's intelligence.
      1. From Carolyn Schmalz...Anthem Opinions

        Is there anything in the By-Laws regarding the dues?

        Shouldn’t the residents be notified by mail before there is a change?

        Just curious.
      2. Carolyn,

        They say "curiosity killed the cat". In this case, it's killing the pocketbook.

        When you "elect" them to represent you, they have that power.

        They notify you by mail WITH A NEW BILL !

        It is hard to understand that taking care of 3 buildings and their landscaping, takes (7,144 homes x $1,210 each = $8,644,240 !)

        Add an additional prospective $120 for 2018 would bring each unit owner's total amount to $1,330 or an additional $857,280 of association revenue.

        The total amount collected in 2018 with this example would then amount to $9,501, compared to the current amount of $7,858,400 in 2016....

        ...and that is an additional $1,643,120 in just a 2 year period.

        And...we haven't even added the "Asset Enhancement Fee" revenue that people pay when their homes are sold at .33% of the gross purchase price !

        Someone has to finance a GM & CFO making close to a half million dollars...and guess who that is ?

        YOU, ME, and EVERYONE !...

        ..while the greatest number of retired individuals collecting Social Security will get a .3% increase in benefit combined with an increase in medicare premiums ...

        ...which in turn, when the addition and subtraction is considered, creates LESS than you will have received in 2016.

        Tell that to people who still say "Oh, but our dues is low compared to other communities" !!! if that is going to make people feel better !
        1. From Barbara Opinions

          I wondered what the CFO was making. Now I know.

          It is amazing that we have never seen the budget comparing self-management vs a management company.

          They insist that the management company wasn't doing its job, but no proof has ever been give.

          Very sad. 
  1. From Mary Lee Opinions







  2. Mary Lee,

    Over on one blog, in reporting the information to his readers, for some reason the bottom of the President's report was omitted, thereby deceiving his readers.

    Mr. Weddle's PUBLIC STATEMENT on Sun City Anthem'S OFFICIAL EMAIL COMMUNICATION read as follows:

    "NRS 116 instructs the Board to seek a majority of votes allotted to confirm the Board’s decision to file this CD matter. This means 3,573 YES votes. If you haven’t received your ballot or need a replacement please contact the Administration Office at Anthem Center (702) 614-5815."

    "Once your ballot has been cast, it cannot be changed."

    This was either a mistake, or this important section was DELIBERATELY WITHHELD.

    Draw your own conclusions.

    Of course a bandwagon of his minions fell for it hook, line, and sinker. They believe this Pied Piper, despite the wasted funds that have taken place year after year by those he has embraced.

    People can now see for themselves, as plain as the nose on their faces, this omission was just another example of "half-truth".

    When it comes to this continual deception in order to convince readers to vote "yes" to a lawsuit without providing ANY of the other LEGAL elements...

    ...including the legal right to have equal space for any CON arguments, much less even mentioning the negative effect it would have on home sales...

    ... that form of what he refers to as "journalism" is detrimental to a community, and is clearly intended to achieve a private end.

    To paraphrase a phrase that has lately been popularly used, when it comes to this behavior....

    "It's time to drain the swamp". 

Anthem Opinions Co-Owner
Addresses Law Suit Issue with
Email to Sun City Anthem Board

Receives Response from Sun City Anthem
Board President
email-hosting.jpg (508×511)
Without the technical expertise of Allen Weintraub, Anthem Opinions would never exist.  Knowing Allen since my college days...and a fellow fraternity brother, rarely does he get the credit he properly deserves.

 Today...he deserves kudos for the following email he sent to each member of the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors.

After he sent his email to the board, we were more than pleased that Sun City Anthem President, Rex Weddle, responded to Allen.

Because we feel this matter is of such great importance to our community, his response has been included with this article.

Dick Arendt
Anthem Opinions Administration

Here is a copy of his correspondence sent to:

Rex Weddle
Aletta Waterhouse
(Vice President)
Bella Meese
Thomas Nissen
Carl Weinstein
Jim Mayfield
Bob Burch
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Just a quick opinion.

How does the board WANT me to vote?

I have not received enough information to make an intelligent decision.

I did not notice any cons in the lawyers letter to me.  

Has anyone actually communicated the amount of money we may get NET if we win?  And NET if we lose?  Do we have any sense of how long it may take to do this? Since we live in the gambling capital of the world, do we have odds on winning?

Naturally the law firm has a financial interest in moving ahead with this lawsuit.  Are they the big winners with little downside risk?

Why did we not get a letter from the board to accompany the lawyers letter?

I understand that some cons were emailed, but I do not recall getting the email.  The same media should be used for letters and board information.

As a businessman, I am disturbed with the process that the board has taken.  They are not treating the homeowners with the respect that they deserve.

Due diligence as a board member is certainly not being followed.  

We elect the board to represent us and not provide partial information.

We are not mushrooms that you can put a pile of XXXX on us and expect us to grow.

I can only guess that it would take years for a lawsuit like this to come to fruition.  

That means that every home for sale would be required to disclose potential liability  and this could harm home values.

And let’s remember, the likelihood is that all of you board members will be long gone by then and the current BOD will have to deal with your decisions just like you are dealing with bad decisions of your predecessors.

Let me finish by providing you with a personal experience of a few years ago.  

I was on a cruise with my spouse and befriended another couple that we spent a week with and did not know prior to the cruise.

His occupation was a defense attorney.  

He was one of a few independent law firms that represented none other than  Pulte. 

We had deep discussions as my other homeowners association was in the process of suing Pulte.  

His comments to me were….go ahead and try.  

Pulte RARELY loses a lawsuit because one loss could open the floodgates to other claims. 

He said they would spend more money than the value of the suit to guarantee a win and that they had staying power
He told me that he has NEVER lost at trial representing Pulte and he has tried over 2 dozen cases.




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Response Received from Rex Weddle

Sun City Anthem

(reprinted with permission)

I am concerned about the level of misstatement and misunderstanding in the community over the Board’s authorization of a CD lawsuit against Pulte. I have gotten several phone calls at home, received a number of emails, and have been approached by others with concerns. Several mentioned having been totally confused by reading community blogs. Some have expressed a need for every last piece of financial detail of Liberty Center expense before deciding how to vote.  Others wanted a prediction of the outcome of litigation.

Some of this confusion arises from the ratification request sent to members. 

The Association is restricted in how it presents the issues in this ratification process, so the communication had to sound neutral – and thus maybe confusing.  We were required to warn about the possibility of losing and then, under some circumstances, paying the opposition’s legal costs. All of that has led to degree of uncertainty by some.

Because the Board has taken action in this matter, I can make these statements:

The Board authorized this action because SCA has a history with CD claims, one of which required litigation, and a perfect record, thus far, of success.

When you think someone owes you $2 M through no fault of your own and they refuse to pay you, the reality is this: if you want to be paid, litigation becomes your only recourse.

We remain in mediation with Pulte about a possible settlement without requiring the full litigation process.

We have a legal obligation to explain to members what MIGHT happen if we lose a lawsuit. As a result, some seem to fear the consequences of losing in court. Having a career experience with civil litigation, I know that 95% of cases, historically, resolve themselves without a trial. I don’t have the statistics for CD lawsuits, but I expect that figure to be no lower and likely greater.

No one can predict with certainty the outcome of litigation. If they could, there would be no lawsuits. Every case would quickly settle and no one would sue. That's one reason we can't answer questions about our recovery probabilities. 

With seven figures at risk and a miniscule statistical chance of losing at trial, if there is one, balancing the reward against the risk seems to be an easy mental leap.

Our counsel is handling this on a contingency fee basis. The firm is fronting the costs.  It will get paid only if it wins. The attorneys for Pulte will get paid regardless of the outcome.

We can bemoan the cost of litigation and the fact it will eat into any recovery, but there are always winners and losers in litigation - but the lawyers never lose.

There is one more comment I can make.

No one has yet explained or argued that SCA has done anything wrong which would deny a recovery.

Somebody dropped the ball on Liberty Center and it wasn’t us. 

We had to fix it and we want our money back.  

People can decide for themselves, but the Board recommends a Yes vote.
We need residents to vote and send in or drop off their ballots by 1/5 for the 1/6 vote count.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anthem Opinions thanks Mr. Weddle for his response.

Got a comment to Allen Weintraub's email AND /OR the Sun City Anthem Board President's response?

Send it to us at:

  1. After reading the response from Association President, Rex Weddle, it appears that there is conflict between NRS 116, Sun City Anthem CCRs, and the December, 2016 issue of the Spirit magazine.

    ....conflict that requires CLARIFICATION.

    NRS 116

    Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the association may commence a civil action only upon a vote or written agreement of the owners of units to which at least a majority of the votes of the members of the association are allocated.

    Sun City Anthem CCRs

    Such action shall require the vote of owners of 75% of the total number of lots in the Association or Neighborhood Association, as appropriate.

    Spirit Magazine (December, 2016 issue) Page 14

    "The statue indicates that a minimum of 50% of ALL SCA homeowners cast a vote in favor to ratify the lawsuit and the BOD's decision. This means that 50% of the homeowners need to submit their vote."

    So, which is it? 

    Note the Spirit claims that all that is needed to go forth with the Pulte law suit is a simple majority of those who cast a ballot... long as at least 50% + 1 unit owners vote. (3573).

    If the 'rules" shown in the Spirit Magazine are those that are used, this appears to violate BOTH NRS116 and Sun City Anthem CCRs.

    In addition, the Spirit article did NOT PROVIDE any opportunity in which to have any CON statements made, another VIOLATION of NRS 116 that requires equal space for both sides of the argument.

    It was previously noted that an EBLAST (not all people receive them) sent on November 11, 2016 stated that any CON arguments be submitted no later than November 9, 2016...

    ...two days AFTER THE CLOSE of opportunity to have them published, hence no CON arguments in neither the Spirit nor the letter from the Law Firm.

    The Spirit article also DID NOT STATE that any SELLERS OF SCA home sales MUST DISCLOSE ANY PENDING LEGAL ACTION brought by Sun City Anthem.

    Mr. Weddle, in my opinion, in order to "sell" this law suit, has both INTERPRETED THE LAW IN A BIASED MANNER, VIOLATED BOTH NRS 116 and SCA CCRs and allowed a BIASED POSTING in the Community Sponsored Magazine, The Spirit.

    In my FURTHER opinion and that of many others in Sun City Anthem, that this Board and management have UNDULY made a BIASED ATTEMPT to obtain approval for a civil action.

    The "trust factor" of this decision has been severely violated, and as a result, I personally cannot in any way support this civil action.

    We have made numerous attempts to obtain the "full story" in order to arrive at an intelligent decision, yet the actions of Board and Association Management have ONLY provided information THEY WANTED YOU TO HEAR.

    We have also found out that if you previously voted, and wish to CHANGE YOUR VOTE, YOU CAN DO SO.

    Simply go the Administration Office in Anthem Center, and request a new ballot.


    I would also suggest YOUR PHYSICALLY WATCHING THE INDIVIDUAL VOIDING THE INCORRECT BALLOT.... lieu of the questionable 2016 Board of Directors election results THAT INCLUDED:

    1. the many questions that remained after a number of unit owner ballots were supposedly misplaced and left the premises of Sun City Anthem.

    2. a voting machine counter that mysteriously MALFUNCTIONED.
    1. .......and, exactly HOW MUCH would this lawsuit cost us? The article in the Spirit states: "Therefore, the Association is not paying the law firm unless the attorney is successful in obtaining funds in this matter for the association"

      Smoke and Mirrors: IF the attorney IS '...successful in obtaining funds in this matter...' HOW MUCH OF A CUT DO THE ATTORNEYS GET? HOW MUCH IS LEFT TO REPAY US?....AND if you read the fine-print, if we lose (a very definite possibility considering Pulte's history in such lawsuits) WE MAY HAVE TO PAY PULTE'S LEGAL COSTS. Either way, WE will have to pay someone AND we will NEVER see the entire Liberty Center repair amount returned to us

      The proposed lawsuit is a classic "Throwing good money after bad"

      At best, the Board's obvious push for this lawsuit reflects a convenient interpretation of Nevada Law and our CCR' worst it reflects some unknown nefarious reason(s) which will never be revealed.
  1. From Rana Opinions

    A neighbor went to Ms. Seddon's office asking how she could change her vote since she had changed her mind and was told she could not change it once her vote had been submitted.
  2. I received information from a member of the Board of Directors that a vote could be changed in the way the article signified.

    I suggest you have your neighbor get her information IN WRITING from the individual who gave her that information.... I did.


To Sue


Not to Sue

gTeoLdBEc.jpg (400×226)
By now all Sun City Anthem unit owners will have received from a law firm named "Lynch Hopper Smith LLP", a letter with an enclosed ballot to approve or disapprove the association bringing suit against the builder of the Liberty Center, "Pulte Homes of Nevada".

According to the letter, the deadline to cast your ballot is January 5, 2017.

In our opinion it was obvious this law firm wishes to proceed with litigation, seeking $1.5 million in damages as do the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors, otherwise no contact would have been made to any law firm for assistance.

Since this letter was sent, we have been inundated as to whether voters should approve or disapprove of this action.

What is the best course of action?

Let us be VERY CLEAR

This is a personal decision that has weighed heavily on our readers, and we at Anthem Opinions, have a deep concern as to the "right" or "wrong" decision.

However, before you cast your ballot, there are a number of issues that in our belief, need to be resolved....

...issues that the letter NEGLECTED.
10232_fit512.jpg (512×512)

First, under NRS 116.31088, the Association is required to notify unit owners AND RECEIVE THEIR APPROVAL, before any such action may commence.

There are 7,144 units in Sun City Anthem and to proceed with any action, A MAJORITY of those owners MUST vote in favor of doing so.

That amounts to 3,573 votes.  

It is not the majority of those WHO VOTE, but THE MAJORITY OF the ENTIRE ASSOCIATION.

Whether 3,573 unit owners vote in favor of such action BY JANUARY 5, 2017, is questionable.

Second-Mortgages.jpeg (609×405)

Second, NRS 116 states that the Association must provide EQUAL TIME for both "PRO" and "CON" arguments.

Was proper time allowed for both PROS and CONS?

We do NOT believe that to be the case. 

We originally received notification from the Association on November 11, 2016 that any CONS had to have been received by November 9, 2016.

Obviously how does one file a CON two days AFTER  being notified that the deadline had passed?

When one looks at the letter from the law firm, it indicates that THERE WERE NO CON STATEMENTS provided by members of the Association.

Was the timing intentional to avoid any CON arguments?

We believe the entire association is entitled to an answer.

3rd_Party_Plans.jpg (597×594)

Third, after looking closely at the letter from Lynch Hopper Smith,  the contents of the letter did not indicate THE PERCENTAGE the law firm would receive, and there is NO projected cost from what this percent would be deducted. 

Is there any contract with the law firm that spells this out 

None was attached to the letter.

Normally the "cut" is 33% to the attorney if it DOES NOT GO TO COURT, and 40% if it does.

Sun City Anthem gets its "cut"  AFTER the attorney fees and costs are deducted

Costs are depositions, filing and miscellaneous court fees, expert witness testimony fees, etc.

number-four1.jpg (500×333)

FourthIt will perhaps take years and if this goes to trial without prior out of court  settlement , then we would likely receive only 50% of the settlement amount

Ex. Settlement amount: $500,000, less 33% attorney fee or $165,000, less costs of $35,000 = net recovery of $300,000.

The question is... we spend 3-5 years of litigation of time and costs to get a potential net of  $300,000 to $400,000 through settlement, or do we take a chance to see if it "goes the distance" and...

... if we lose...

... get NOTHING and also possibly be ordered to pay Pulte legal fees and costs ?  ($200,000 ???)

Could the later take place ?  Not likely, but NOT impossible.

I_Plead_the_Fifth.jpg (400×513)

That leads us to Fifth...Being practical.

Consider the following...

Remember....the City of Henderson's inspectors signed off on this project when it was originally built,  and I'm sure the Builder will claim that as a defense.

...and as the saying often goes....

"You Can't Beat City Hall"

...and you can bet your life that the defendant's  main witness will the The City of Henderson.

Here's another "practicality"....

A year ago, a dear friend went on a cruise and happened to share a dining table with an attorney WHO WORKED ON NUMEROUS PULTE LAWSUITS, mentioning that Sun City Anthem was considering legal action against Pulte.

His advice was twofold....and....startling !

"As an attorney, PLEASE SUE PULTE, because Pulte defense attorneys make a killing when these types of suits take place, but speaking as a nice guy meeting a person on a cruise, don't do itbecause Pulte will spend more then the gross of what you're asking rather than lose a precedent setting case."

That's right..a PRECEDENT SETTING DECISION that if Sun City Anthem prevailed, would send shock waves throughout the country and open a flood of potential legal action against them.

Yet another "practicality"...

Will there be any impact on a current unit owner wishing to sell a home if litigation commences?

If that be the case ANY CIVIL ACTION MUST BE DISCLOSED TO ANY PROSPECTIVE BUYER due to the possibility of any adverse financial decision that may result to the subsequent buyer.

Will this have an affect property values or the ability to sell homes?

0718-Beer_Cup.jpg (570×570)

Sixthwhat if we win?

Those familiar with civil actions know that rarely do these cases actually go to court, but let's say this one did...and we won !

Does that mean we receive the full amount requested?


Actually, that's when the real bargaining begins...and...the legal bills can become a nightmare !

Why is that?

Pulte could and likely would, "appeal" the decision, and that opens a "can of worms" THAT REQUIRES HOURLY LEGAL FEES and COSTS BE SPENT.   

The legal "contingency" fees apply to the original suit ONLY, NOT any subsquent APPEAL....

...this is, unless a contract was signed prior to commencement of ANY ACTION....


So...where do we stand ?


...until the contract with the law firm has been disclosed.

...and without actually seeing the FULL CONTRACT, we believe, it would not be in the best interests of residents to vote approval of any such lawsuit against Pulte.

Once again, we are not "for" or "against" this measure, but in order to make a proper intelligent decision, this CONTRACT with LYNCH HOPPER SMITH law firm would more than greatly assist the unit members of Sun City Anthem.

Past experience of legal actions by Sun City Anthem have proven less than favorable to members.  

Let's not allow this to be another "notch" in our wallets without knowing the FULL STORY.

Do you have an opinion? 

Have we made an error in our assumptions?

If so, PLEASE LET US the financial future of Sun City Anthem may depend on this action.

share-your-thoughts.jpg (635×328)

  1. From Elizabeth Opinions

    The request from our BOD to sign onto the lawsuit (already filed) has many holes. It is impossible to make an intelligent decision when uninformed. First and foremost - where is the actual Complaint that was filed? Once again, we are all treated like a bunch of imbeciles who can't understand and therefore the Complaint must be "above" our level of comprehension so we get 5 bullet points thrown at us in a lengthy "pro statement" (vs no "con statement"). No "con statement" tells me the BOD is litigious and the attorneys are not capable or unwilling to provide a downside on this matter - which in and of itself gives me pause.

    The fact that the Complaint did not bring Pulte to the settlement table should be concerning. Then again, they are sued all over the country and have teams of lawyers who do nothing but represent them for a living, so this is nothing but an annoying fly to them. Pulte has deep pockets that are constantly refilled as they build and sell, up against our community of retirees. I see the potential for a large special assessment on the horizon.

    Our attorneys bring up that SCA would have to pay Pulte's fees if we lose the case. That is a GIVEN. The Plaintiff will be responsible for ALL the Defendant's fees AND costs if we do not prevail. This will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Additionally, our attorneys say they will not charge a fee if we lose. What about reimbursing the costs they are advancing? The experts, the deposition transcripts, copy fees, etc.? That issue was conveniently not addressed in the letter at all however, read carefully "advanced" - that is not the same as covering it. They are not allowed to "eat" those costs. Lynch Hopper says they are handling this case on a contingency. So if the Plaintiff prevails, will Lynch Hopper apply to the Court for the Defendant to pay their fees and costs or will they take a percentage of the award (an unknown amount) - if so , what is that arrangement? How much before trial, how much if we go to trial? 30%? 40%/50%?

    We are being asked to make a very important decision that can affect not only our finances for years to come but our Community reputation and ability to sell during litigation and yet given only the barest of information. I think it should all be laid out on the table. I would also want to know that the Community can have a say as this would proceed, should litigation continue. Can we pull the plug at some point if we feel we are going down and it is getting out of control or is this going to be a spiral, once committed to, never to be undone? The BOD has proven, with the restaurant fiasco, that they let bad situations get worse and worse, leaving the Community holding the financial bag, before they finally act. I don't believe the law firm or the BOD should have carte blanche on a law suit for perpetuity.

    I don't sign a contract before reading it in full - I won't vote for or against a lawsuit until I have all the information - I want to see the Complaint and the Motion to Dismiss and have ALL the facts. The BOD should have representatives of Lynch Hopper address members of the Community at a Q & A before we vote. I interview attorneys before I hire them. I would like to see how sharp these people are. Since they can't come up with one negative to our Community filing a lawsuit, I am already leery since a good attorney should know all sides of a case.
  2. From Buddy Opinions

    Every resident should look deep into "What do we have to gain and what do we have to lose.”

    Naturally the law firm wants to move forward as they have lots to gain.

    They can string this along at a cost that is not that great, but Pulte will spend whatever they need to fight us.

    As the article says, they have lots to lose if they do not prevail and this would be a critical case in Pulte's future business. If and when we lose, we pay their inflated costs. Do we reserve that now? What will that do to your dues. Could it be in the millions?

    This lawsuit would probably take years to finish.

    Today our illustrious board says sue. Those board members will be long gone by the time this thing moves along. We will then have this lawsuit hanging over the heads of the then current board.

    Here is where we will be….keep pushing to finish something that someone else who is not serving in their infinite wisdom said sue.

    We had a non professional with bad judgment agree to move forward on accepting the Liberty Center many years ago.

    Today we are paying for her bad judgment. Let’s pay the piper and move forward.

    Wake up…..this is a loser.
    1. NRS 116.31088 

      Meetings regarding civil actions; requirements for commencing or ratifying certain civil actions; right of units’ owners to request dismissal of certain civil actions; disclosure of terms and conditions of settlements.

      1.  The association shall provide written notice to each unit’s owner of a meeting at which the commencement of a civil action is to be considered at least 21 calendar days before the date of the meeting. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the association may commence a civil action only upon a vote or written agreement of the owners of units to which at least a majority of the votes of the members of the association are allocated. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to a civil action that is commenced:

      (a) To enforce the payment of an assessment;

      (b) To enforce the declaration, bylaws or rules of the association;

      (c) To enforce a contract with a vendor;

      (d) To proceed with a counterclaim; or

      (e) To protect the health, safety and welfare of the members of the association. If a civil action is commenced pursuant to this paragraph without the required vote or agreement, the action must be ratified within 90 days after the commencement of the action by a vote or written agreement of the owners of the units to which at least a majority of votes of the members of the association are allocated. If the association, after making a good faith effort, cannot obtain the required vote or agreement to commence or ratify such a civil action, the association may thereafter seek to dismiss the action without prejudice for that reason only if a vote or written agreement of the owners of the units to which at least a majority of votes of the members of the association are allocated was obtained at the time the approval to commence or ratify the action was sought.

      2.  At least 10 days before an association commences or seeks to ratify the commencement of a civil action, the association shall provide a written statement to all the units’ owners that includes:

      (a) A reasonable estimate of the costs of the civil action, including reasonable attorney’s fees;

      (b) An explanation of the potential benefits of the civil action and the potential adverse consequences if the association does not commence the action or if the outcome of the action is not favorable to the association; and

      (c) All disclosures that are required to be made upon the sale of the property.

      3.  No person other than a unit’s owner may request the dismissal of a civil action commenced by the association on the ground that the association failed to comply with any provision of this section.

      4.  If any civil action in which the association is a party is settled, the executive board shall disclose the terms and conditions of the settlement at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the executive board after the settlement has been reached. The executive board may not approve a settlement which contains any terms and conditions that would prevent the executive board from complying with the provisions of this subsection.

      (Added to NRS by 2005, 2585
      1. Given what was sent to us, I have little to no information on which to make an intelligent decision. It would have been helpful to have known how much was spent on the repairs to Liberty Center. Second, what have we recovered from insurance claims of that amount? Last, what amount are we hoping to gain from the lawsuit?

        From my humble Midwestern upbringing, this is what my Grandpa would have called being asked to "Buy a Pig in a Poke". In his post above, Buddy Greenfield hits the "nail on the head" in making his arguments. I can see people voting to sue today thinking we will get big returns in the future. But if we lose then we will end up owing more for Pulte's legal expenses than we would have ever won. Hmmm - maybe the board ought to just take $1.5 of our money to one of the local gambling establishments - at least we could figure out our odds of winning. Of course I am kidding, but with the lack of information this is what I feel the letter sent to me asking for my vote is asking me to do.

        I agree with Buddy to first take a long hard look at exactly what we have to gain and what we have to lose and to then determine that "this is a loser".

        Without the information that Dick outlines any "intelligent" person would need to know prior to making this kind of decision, I intend to Vote NO and would encourage others to do the same. Let's move on down the road and focus our efforts on managing and maintaining our property well with transparent and well founded fiscal planning for both our operating budget and reserves.

          1. Dick ArendtNovember 28, 2016 at 9:43 AM
          2. Anthem Opinions has been made aware that there appears to be a discrepancy as to how the word "majority" is to be determined...that the Board will likely take the position that to commence such legal action, a SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING in favor of the measure, would allow the law suit to take place...

            ...just another FLAGRANT VIOLATION which not only seems to contradict NRS 116, but our Sun City Anthem CCRs as well.

            Other than citing NRS regulations....

            It is interesting that Sun City Anthem CCR's are even more stringent than Nevada NRS legislation.

            Sun CIty Anthem CCR's
            Section 16.2

            Except as provided in this section, the Association or Neighborhood Association shall not commence a judicial or administrative proceeding without first providing at least 21 days written notice of a meeting to consider such proposed action to its members. Such action shall require the vote of owners of 75% of the total number of lots in the Association or Neighborhood Association, as appropriate. This section shall not apply however, to (a) Actions brought by the Association to enforce the Governing Documents (including, but without limitation, the collection of assessments and the foreclosure of leins); (b) Counterclaims brought by the Association in proceedings instituted against it; or (c) actions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the Members.

            This section shall not be amended unless such amendment is approved by the percentage of votes, and pursuant to the same procedures, necessary to institute proceedings as provided above.
            1. From Lawrence Opinions


              Your reader’s have pretty much said all I was considering writing, and in much more depth and detail.

              Our house has already voted NO for the many reasons noted above.

              Moving here is our first experience with an HOA. The hubris of the Board of Directors would be amusing except for the fact that it is directly impacting our wallet.

              Had we known this type of behavior is the norm in Sun City Anthem we would have seriously considered locating elsewhere.

              If we were trying to sell a house here, the pending lawsuit and the effect on possible buyers would be a larger concern.

              Many of us living here had highly responsible careers before retiring here. We are not idiots.

              The new assessment based on a faulty reserve study and now this absurd lawsuit ???

              The Board just seems to love spending other peoples money on illegal and harmful positions for the community.

              Unfortunately this “group” of people keeps getting elected over and over and they keep driving us deeper into a financial mess.

              I only hope some truly responsible and intelligent people will be elected to the Board in the next few years.

              Very depressing.

              Happy Holidays.
              1. From Mike Opinions

                I have a 7th option....

                Lets sue the Board Members who are directly responsible for getting us into this mess by carelessly allowing a sign off of this project...

                Just something to think about...
                1. From Mike Opinions

                  If this has gotten to the point of a lawsuit, its unfair to place this burden on the shoulders of Retired People who just want a peaceful transition into the next world...

                  Rules are in place to help elderly people not have to go through this type of what amounts to ABUSE...

                  Dick, I would come at this issue from this perspective, and not ALLOW THIS VOTE BE FORCED ON THE MEMBERS....THE MEMBERS DIDN’T CAUSE THIS...

                  My 2 cents worth..
                  1. Dick ArendtNovember 29, 2016 at 11:53 AM
                  2. Mike, I fully agree with you.

                    In my opinion, this entire MESS could have been avoided had a former Association President, Roz Bermanhad the common sense to listen to the sound advice of Forrest Fetherolf, and had the Liberty Center properly inspected prior to it being accepted.

                    In our opinion this is entirely on HER SHOULDERS for a blunder that has cost unit owners dearly. 

                    With the ultimate price all unit owners will be paying, with or without a lawsuit, when one looks at her past incompetent record (Liberty Center, Restaurant backdoor dealings, her refusal to comment on a segment of Darcy Spears Channel 13's Hall of Shame), there leaves little doubt as to her and her husband being nothing short of a meddling curse to the financial well-being of Sun City Anthem. 

                    Both of their records at failing at just about everything they touch, can only be denied by those whose head's reside deeply in a mound of sand.

                    If anyone disagrees, please respond as to ANY success either have ever achieved other than endorsing those who have again and again, led us down a continual downward slide.
                    1. From B & Opinions

                      Prior to reading the research/analyses, we were determined to vote to sue.

                      But, having read the article, we changed our mind, and will vote NOT TO SUE based upon the fact that there is too much uncertainty involved if we vote yes to sue, and the uncertainty is NOT Good for property prices when

                      You never know how long the process of suing would last.

                      Furthermore, there is not that much remaining money left even if we win.
                    2. From Dorothy Opinions

                      I totally agree that it is unreasonable to ask SCA residents to simply vote YES or NO without reviewing the contract with the Law Office. We have no idea what kind of financial responsibility that we are agreeing to endure if the legal action was unsuccessful.

                      On the other hand, if people do not submit their ballots, it will just be deemed as unconcerned.

                      We are not sure if the board will uphold the majority rule and declare unsuccessful voting if the majority votes did not reach 3,570...or, simply just go the direction of the higher number of votes.

                      Therefore, I am going to send back my voting ballot with my comment "without reviewing the contract with the law office, I am unable to make an informed/intelligent decision".

                      If enough people make this type of comment, maybe we will make a difference.

                      Although we are retired, we are not retarded.

                      May be someday, but NOT TODAY!!!

                      At this time, I do not know how to change your vote, yet, your concern is not only legitimate but should be our whole community's concern!

                      So many of us just got partial facts and asked us to vote.

                      Fair or not?

                      Honestly, I never imagined having my retirement stage of my life to deal with something like this.

                      After so many years working hard for the equal rights for all people from all walks of life, as well as, all cultures, races, who live at the United States of America, some of the details in this country's so called Legal System is trying to leave many of us behind, intentionally or unintentionally.

                      Thanks to Dick for his thorough analysis.

                      I hope and believe this response will be a wake up call for our SCA's board members to know whatever they do, is not just a rubber stamp.

                    3. From Buddy Opinions

                      Dorothy, you letter could not have said it more effectively.

                      Shouldn't letters like this be sent to the board?

                      If enough people sent their thoughts and concerns to members of the Board, they would get the idea… maybe.

                    4. Great idea Buddy.

                      It certainly couldn't hurt, although I have received a number of emails from residents who NEVER receive any responses to their concerns with the exception of Director Carl Weinstein.

                      For those of you who wish to try to contact members of the Board, Anthem Opinions provides an Information Page  listing who and where to send your thoughts.

                      Here is a link to all of their email addresses:



                2. 2017

                  Three  Changes in Social Security

                  SSA-logo.jpg (1259×1263)

                  You'll get a tiny cost-of-living increase.

                  In 2015, the inflation measure used by the Social Security Administration to determine whether recipients get a cost-of-living adjustment didn't budge, so the amount of money paid out to recipients in Social Security benefits didn't increase in 2016.

                  the-social-security-cost-of-living-adjustment-set-for-2017-is-barely-enough-to-buy-a-starbucks-frappuccino.jpg (850×425)

                  This time around, a 0.3% increase in Social Security's inflation calculation means that Social Security income will correspondingly increase by 0.3% in 2017.

                  The increase is welcome, however, it may not translate into a bigger monthly Social Security check.

                  Medicare Part B premiums will increase.

                  30043f10-6270-429a-861b-d3da4d48ce14-large16x9_30043f106270429a861bd3da4d48ce14Medicare_30109.jpg (986×556)
                  Most Medicare Part B enrollees pay their monthly premium directly out of their Social Security income, and monthly Part B premiums are heading higher next year.

                  Part B enrollees who pay a monthly premium of $104.90 this year will pay $109.00 on average in 2017.

                  If You're currently employed, you could be paying more Payroll Tax

                  Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system and that means that payroll taxes on worker income today is used to pay current Social Security recipients.

                  In 2016, Social Security is partially funded by a 12.4% payroll tax -- split equally between employer and employee -- on taxable income up to $118,500.

                  Payroll_Tax_Holiday_1.jpg (300×225)

                  In 2017that 12.4% payroll tax will be applied to taxable income up to        $127,200.

                  Someone did some interesting math and sent it to us.

                  Food for thought.

                  If the average monthly Social Security Check is $1,500 and the .3% increase is $4.50; annually that amounts to $18.00.

                  We have a General Manager in Sun City Anthem that is receiving a bonus of $20,000.

                  That means that 
                  1,111 of you residents who are on Social Security, will be paying her bonus with your Social Security COLA for 2017.

                  Sun City Anthem Dues Assessments

                  to Increase

                  10% in 2017

                  billshockshutterstock_73295038.png (464×271)

                  It is Justified ?
                  Tim Stebbins

                  After several years of stable assessment, a substantial jump if planned for 2017...

          annual increase of 10%...

                  Gpra9RzYSpy22XaW3EK9_100_dollar_bill.jpg (3328×1403)

                  10-dollar-bill.jpg (1200×509)


                  Is that amount justified?

                  Management tells us that we need more revenue to "beef up" our reserve fund to pay for future repairs and replacement of our common elements based on a new reserve study.

                  That MAY be true...

                  ...but HOW MUCH should our assessments increase to meet that need?
                  The other major factor is the board decision to have a...


                  Slush Fund

                  ...of unencumbered cash...

                  ...loose money which has NOT BEEN designated for any particular need !

                  In the past such surplus case has been called "working capital" or "contingency money"...the current buzz word now being used is "equity".

                  "Equity" has meaning for commercial corporations, but has a nubulous definition for a nonprofit Home Owners Association such as Sun City Anthem.

                  Nevada law states HOAs are NOT permitted to "tuck away" cash that has not been committed to a specific operational need of an association....

                  ...that at the end of the year, all that "loose cashMUST BE RETURNED TO UNIT OWNERS or PLACED IN THE RESERVE FUND.

                  Historically, our assessments have exceeded our needs.

                  In fact a surplus of in excess of $600,000 was placed in our reserve fund just last month.

                  In my opinion it appears that a number of our current Board members have an almost "paranoiac fear" for some major unexpected and UNINSURED obligation that might suddenly befall Sun City Anthem in 2017.

                  That has NEVER been the case in the past, and appears to be more of a speculative possibility rather than a realistic probability....


                  In any case there are other means to prepare for such an unlikely catastrophic event.

                  One way would have SCA arrange for a $500,000 Line of Credit with a major bank.  The relationship with our current bank over the many years of association existence should allow us to obtain favorable terms; and in reality, there would be no cost unless the "line of credit" was needed.

                  Another option would be an "umbrella" insurance policy to cover such contingencies.  That too would have a minimal cost.

                  If the "catastrophic event" were due to a LEGAL JUDGMENT against the association, the court system is such that it would take months to years to settle, allowing time to prepare for any such potential threat.

                  Those examples could include a immediate increase in dues, or a special one time assessment.

                  How would elimination of the $500,000 "slush fund" from the 2017 budget affect 2017 assessments?

                  The 10% increase to $1,210 annually for each unit owner amounts to $785,840 of additional association revenue.

                  If the $500,000 was applied to our "reserve fund" rather than to the "slush fund", that would leave us just under $286,000.

                  The result of the bookkeeping change ?

                  That would require only $40 of additional annual assessment per unit owner.

                  This would serve two purposes:

                  First, it would satisfy the reserve needs projected by management.

                  Secondly, it would be a lesser burden to unit owners.

                  In my estimation, either of these two courses of action would be more prudent and comfortable to SCA owners rather than the amount proposed by management.
                  1. From John Opinions

                    It seems the new management is trying to dictate to our residents what they think is best for us. They are now trying to change times for our clubs to play that is not convenient for our club members.

                    This was done without any input from the club Presidents nor the members if this is in "our best interest".

                    They are changing the times when we can play that interferes with dinner and lunch times when most normal people eat.

                    A play time of 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM interferes with lunch, 2:00 PM to 6:00PM interrupts dinner and 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM is not good for our elderly residents who do not drive at night.

                    Also who gets to pick what times?

                    What if all the clubs want the same time slots?

                    Who chooses?

                    We are being forced to sometimes only being able to be in one club.

                    I thought we are the owners of this community not the other way around.

                    Is Sun City Administration trying to be like our government deciding what is best for us?

                    I think we need to rethink this situation of being told what is in our best interest and let us the residents decide.

                  Are You Registered to Vote?

                  Dollarphotoclub_71344017.jpg (600×375)
                  The Clark County Election Department is currently processing about 17,000 voter applications ahead of the November election.
                  Tuesday September 27th marked National Voter Registration Day.
                  If you wish to register, you have until Oct. 8th to do so by mail.
                  The deadline is extended to Oct. 18th if you choose to register online or in person.
                  Here is a link to register online.

                  Got Questions?

                  Requirements for registration

                  You will need a Nevada driver’s license or ID card.
                  You can’t have a felony conviction.
                  You must be a citizen of the United States.
                  You are living here. 

                  Is Social Security all that it's cracked up to be?

                  Yesterday, we brought up a number of concerns as to the future of Social Security.

                  Today, we'll discuss some additional concerns in the Second Part of our Two Part Series on the reality of Social's potential future in our retirement planning.

                  About Social Security

                  (Part Two of Two)

                   socialsecurity.jpg (2000×1333)

                  The Retirement Age Could Be Moved.

                  The full retirement age to receive Social Security was bumped from 65 to 67 in in 1983 -- a slow bump, really, it was phased in over 20 years. Since then, some politicians and committees have argued that the threshold should be moved again to 69 to keep up with increased life expectancies.

                  The flip side, though, is that while Americans are living longer in general, the life expectancy for workers in physically demanding jobs has stayed the same -- same goes for racial minorities
                  Moving the retirement age, then, would have unequal benefits.

                   Trust Funds Are Invested in Low-Yield Securities.

                  Whereas compounding interest will work wonders for your 401(k) or higher-risk investments, the Social Security trust funds were invested in Treasury securities -- much safer than the market, though also lower-yield.

                   Investing in Corporate Securities Could Be Risky

                  There would be a lot of prohibitive factors involved with putting those trusts in higher-earning vehicles.
                    Many are queasy about putting government funds in private corporations, where it could be depleted by fees and subject to market volatility.

                   It's Not a Politically Convenient Time for a Fix.
                  Granted, any time a president and the sitting Congress come from different sides of the aisle, it's difficult to make any sort of political maneuvers.

                   The Social Security Administration Is Understaffed.

                  The number of boomers retiring isn't the only factor affecting Social Security benefits. Facing budget cuts and with more of its employees nearing retirement age would also create a greater need for Social Security employees.

                  Three out of every five SSA employees will be eligible for retirement by 2022. The administration has already lost 11,000 employees -- 12 percent -- in the last three years.

                  Social Security is Losing Field Offices All Over.

                  The Social Security Administration is additionally facing widespread office closures.  In 2014, 44 field offices were consolidated, 503 mobile service stations were shuttered, and plans to open 8 hearing offices and 1 call center have been delayed.

                  Wait Times Are Increasing at the SSA's 800 Number

                  One result of under staffing is waiting a lot longer if you want to talk to a real, live human being on the phone. According to a report released by the SSA, anyone using Social Security's 800 number will be getting a busy signal about 14% of the time (up from 11% in 2011).
                  Call wait times are also up, with the average at about 17 minutes; that's double the wait time in 2012.

                   Social Security Has Spent over $300  Million in a Failed Attempt to Update.

                  In 2008, the SSA decided to overhaul 54 outdated computer systems that process disability claims. This was a project the administration envisioned would take about two to three years, ultimately letting SSA employees nationwide file, process and track claims. 

                  Eight years and over $300 million later, the system still isn't up and running.

                   Most People Don't Know How Social Security Works.

                  In 2010, the Financial Literacy Center asked Americans to grade themselves on how well they know the rules and requirements of claiming Social Security benefits. Only 10% of respondents gave themselves an "A," while more than double that -- 23% -- thought they deserved a failing grade.

                  The survey also asked seven questions to judge how knowledgeable the respondents actually were, and the results were depressing: Only 4 percent earned an "A," while more than half received a "D" or "F."

                  People Aren't Working in Early Retirement -- and They Should Be.

                  What are people so misinformed about?

                  For one, there's the complicated "earnings test" -- a cap on Social Security benefits that's enforced when someone under the retirement age is working and collecting benefits at the same time.

                  It's a confusing rule that reduces benefits ($1 deducted from every $2 earned above an annual limit), and it keeps many Americans from trying to earn extra income in early retirement.

                  The annual limit for 2016 is $15,480; so, if you worked and received an income last year, half of the money you earn above that threshold will be deducted from your Social Security benefits.

                  Click here if you would like to know how the Earnings Test actually works:

                  What most people don't know, however, is that the Social Security Administration will increase your future benefits after you hit retirement age to make up for what you lost.

                   People Lose Lots by Collecting Too Early.

                  Another important decision all future retirees will have to make is when to collect Social Security. Americans who delay collecting their first benefits -- if they can --gain a huge edge in retirement.

                  For example, if you start collecting benefits at 70, versus 62, your monthly payment will be 76% higher. Most financial advisors recommend trying to capitalize on this increase -- a couple that optimizes their benefits could see lifetime gains in excess of $250,000, according to Forbes.

                  Unfortunately, according to Financial Engines' survey, only 40% of respondents know about the percentage increase in monthly benefits owing to a delay of at least two years. That's a large chunk of retirees who could be missing out on tens of thousands of dollars in benefits -- all thanks to timing.

                   People Get Lower Benefits by Not Working for 35 Years.

                  Another easy way to slash the amount of Social Security you get is to not work at least 35 years. 

                  That's because the Social Security Administration calculates your benefits based on the 35 years in which you earned the most income.

                   If you've only worked, say, 31, those last four years are calculated as zeros,  which will cause your retirement benefit to dip

                   Unfortunately, many people don't realize that continuing to work -- even part-time -- is a simple way to raise your Social Security benefits.

                  The Social Security Administration Won't Tell You About All of your Benefits

                  Don't expect the Social Security Administration to go out of its way to inform you of benefits you could be taking, but aren't.....spousal, disability, survivor, etc.

                  It's up to individuals to use software, advisors, the internet, etc., to make sure you're not leaving money on the table.  The Social Security Administration won't usually retroactively apply benefits you've missed (maybe within the last six months, but that's it.)

                  Do your due diligence to make sure you're not losing out on thousands of dollars that could be padding a comfortable retirement.

                   More Beneficiaries Will Owe Taxes on Benefits

                  There's a threshold at which Social Security benefits are taxed, and this cap has never been moved to account for inflation. (It's typically $32,000 for couples and $25,000 for individual beneficiaries). 

                  Because of this, it's becoming more likely that you'll owe taxes on your Social Security benefits by the time you receive them.

                  Just 10% of beneficiaries had to pay taxes on their Social Security in 1984 when the tax threshold was instituted; by 2030, it's estimated that more than one in every two Social Security recipients will be taxed on some or all of their benefits.

                  We suggest you read this article for further clarification as to the income status of your social security benefits.

                  Anthem Opinions Administration
                  1. From Robert Anthem Opinions

                    Regarding Social Security - I understand the rationale about waiting 'as long as possible' to apply for your monthly check (the longer you wait, the bigger the check). However, I chose to apply a year before my "official retirement age" (66) after I did a calculation: IF I waited until 66, I would have lost 1 year's worth of monthly checks; although I would have received a larger check at age 66, it would have taken me almost 13 (thirteen) years to make back the amount I lost by waiting that it comes down to 'how optimistic are you?' If I live beyond 78 or 79, I'll consider the money I am "losing" as the price of living longer than expected and beating the Grim Reaper!


                  Is Social Security all that it's cracked up to be?

                  This is the first of a Two Part Series on the reality of Social's potential future in our retirement planning.

                  About Social Security

                  (Part One of Two)
                  socialsecuritybenefits.jpg (1200×1200)

                  The Social Security program is turning 81 this year, and though most Americans won't commemorate this milestone, 57 million will benefit from it  for more than $1,200 a month.

                  Social Security was created in the wake of one financial crisis; nearly a century later, as the country limps to recovery from another, policymakers are making decisions about the program's future that have real-dollar effects on just about everyone.

                  That makes it a scary time for the millions of Americans approaching retirement -- and the millions who are just starting to fund the Social Security system.

                  Here is the Social Security System as it now confronts all Americans.

                   At Its Current Pace, Social Security Will Run Out by 2033.

                  Since it was established in 1935, Social Security has been a "pay as you go" system -- essentially, a higher-stakes version of the take-a-penny-leave-a-penny tray. So the checks that retirees and other Social Security beneficiaries get are primarily funded by taxes taken from the paychecks of about 96% percent of workers (and matched by their employers).

                  For the most part 
                  up until 2010, Social Security took in more from taxes than it paid out in benefits, investing the surplus in Treasury securities to earn some interest. That practice put about $2.8 trillion in Social Security trust funds.Unfortunately, those funds are no longer just an emergency buffer

                  For the last five years, there's been a cash flow deficit -- it's currently about $75 billion a year, a number that's expected to rise precipitously by the end of this decade.

                  At this rate, the 2014 Social Security Trustees report estimates that the trust funds will become insolvent, i.e. run out, by 2033.

                  Social Security's Disability Program Will Run Out Much Sooner.

                  The Social Security program is financed by two trust funds -- one for retirement benefits, the other for disability benefits. The latter is slated to run out within the next few years, at which point disability benefits will have to be cut by 19%.

                  A recent president budget proposed an additional  0.9% reallocation of funds from the retirement fund to the disability fund to prevent this from happening -- a "robbing Paul to pay Peter" method that Social Security has done
                   11 times since 1994.

                  It would only be a temporary fix -- a fix that would shorten the retirement trust fund's runway by another, valuable year.

                   People Rely On Social Security  More Than Ever.

                  Baby boomers, many of whom are leaving the workforce now or soon, are chronically unprepared for retirement.

                  Not even half of all boomer households between 55 and 64 have anyretirement savings.

                  Even before the recession, our retirement savings habits were lacking.

                  Defined-benefit pensions are becoming more obsolete, with only 22% of Fortune 500 companies currently offering them (compared to 60% in 1998).

                  Today's retirees are leaning hard on their Social Security payments, which in December 2014 averaged $1,282.27 a month, according to the Social Security Administration. 

                   The Ratio of Taxes to Payout Is Shrinking

                  dual-income couple in 1960 making an average salary would pay about $26,000 into the Social Security system in their lifetimes, and ultimately take out $269,000 in benefits -- meaning their benefits were roughly eight times what they were taxed.

                  In 2010, that couple would have paid $523,000 in lifetime taxes but would only benefit from $877,000 in lifetime benefits -- only a third more than they put in.

                   All the Boomers Are Retiring at Once.

                  One of the reasons for Social Security's continuing deficits is the influx of retirees, which is putting a strain on an already strained system.

                   Every month, 250,000 more baby boomers turn 65, with many dropping out of the workforce.

                   In 2010, 10% of boomers were retired; in 2014, that number had jumped to 17%.

                  People Are Living Longer.

                  Social Security depends on the ratio of taxpaying workers to benefit-receiving retirees -- that ratio has to be front-loaded for there to be any kind of surplus.

                  In 2011, there were 2.9 workers for every one retiree; the Social Security Administration estimates that will shrink to just 2-to-1 by 2035.

                  Part of this is thanks to the fact that people are living longer. Whereas just 12% of the population was 65 or older in the middle of the last decade, by 2080 retirement-eligible Americans will make up 23% of the population.

                   People Are Having Fewer Children.

                  At the same time, decreased fertility rates mean fewer Americans are entering the workforce to replace retiring boomers.

                  The birth rate has gone down since the 1960s by more than 30%-- one child for every three, say -- which means the number of Americans paying into the Social Security system is plummeting just as its number of beneficiaries is booming.

                   Benefits Are Growing Faster Than the Economy.

                  A low birthrate and increasing number of retirees also means that the cost of Social Security is quickly becoming a larger percentage of the nation's gross domestic product. 

                   First Beneficiaries Put Less In, Got More Out.

                  Because the system wasn't pre-funded, the first recipients of Social Security put in a lot less and got a lot more out; that gap is still being subsidized by today's workers.

                   Income Inequality Is Eroding Social Security.

                  The increasing income gap is putting less money into the Social Security system.

                  Here's why: The payroll tax that funds Social Security applies to income   caps that increase year to year.

                  In the last several decades, income has disproportionately increased for the rich and remained more stagnant for lower brackets. In 1983, 10% of the nation's income escaped a Social Security tax, compared with 17%  today.

                  With higher wages exempt from the tax, the system is losing out on money at a time when it needs it most. What's more, a lot of the money that top income brackets make doesn't even show up on a paycheck; earnings from investments and stocks, for example, fall under the capital gains tax.

                  Ultimately, according to the report, "upward redistribution of income in the United States has meant that income has shifted away from the workers whose full earnings are taxed and toward high-income workers whose additional dollars are exempt."

                   Social Security Benefits Could Get Cut.

                  So what are the consequences of the Social Security trust funds rapidly becoming insolvent?

                  Well, the Social Security program won't cease to exist -- taxes will still get taken out and benefits will still get paid, although they could get cut.

                  Recipients of disability payments could see a 20%
                   cut in the near future.

                  Combined benefits, from both the disability and retirement trust funds, would be cut by about 25% if the funds run out as expected by 2033. That means retirees would be receiving checks that are about 75% of what they're used to.

                   Social Security Taxes Could Be Raised.

                  To cover the gap between taxes and benefits -- and to prevent a possible benefit cut -- the Social Security Administration might have to increase the tax that's taken out of workers' paychecks. 

                  The current tax rate is 6.2% -- it hasn't budged since 1990.

                  Tomorrow, we'll take a look at other factors that all of us should be concerned as to how Social Security will affect your future retirement plans.

                  I Want My Money and So Should You!

                  i_want_my_money_back_by_xxxdefiance-d30ss0h.jpg (900×497)

                  Tim Stebbins

                  There has been much talk and controversy in our wonderful community about surplus funds.  How did we get a surplus?  How much surplus is there?  What should be done with those surplus funds?

                  Sun City Anthem is organized as HOA nonprofit corporation. 

                  The money taken in is deposited into two so called “Funds”, the Operating Fund and the Reserve Fund

                  The Operating fund is supposed to be used to pay for the day-to-day operations of our community

                  The Reserve Fund is money held aside to pay for the future repair and replacement of our common elements such as our three recreational centers.

                  A surplus arises when our association takes in more money than is needed to fulfill the obligations of operating our community. 

                  Most of the money comes from the assessments we pay, but there are other sources as well such as the fee that is charged every time a home is sold by the owner to a new buyer. 

                  In total that amounts to about $ 9 million every year.

                  In a perfect world the operating fund in a HOA corporation should be zero at the end of the year.  That is all the money taken in for the year and placed into the operating fund is spent on the day-to-day operations of the community for the year.

                  In an association as large as Sun City Anthem it is very difficult to make a perfect prediction of exactly how much day-to-day operations will be via the annual budget.  

                  Nevada state authorities tell us it is prudent for the board to set assessments to generate a bit more than anticipated costs and expenses for unforeseen circumstances in the day-to-day operations, typically about 5% more.

                  However Nevada state law says at the end of the year all money left in the operating fund must be returned to the homeowners of the community.

                  An alternative is the money can be deposited in the reserve fund if that fund is not completely full. 

                  That is an optional decision by the board

                  They can choose to return the money to you and me or they can choose to deposit into the reserve fund.

                  Unfortunately in our community there are some board members and individual homeowners that want to refuse any return to homeowners or deposit it into the reserve fund.  They want to hold the surplus and accumulate the surpluses year after year in a “slush fund”. 

                  That is not permitted under Nevada law. 

                  The big challenge is to determine just how much surplus is left at the end of each year. 

                  That is not as easy as it sounds.

                  The board has charged the Finance Committee to develop policy and procedures to determine the amount of surplus in each year. 

                  One of the premises is the plan should prevent any ability of the board to  accumulate surpluses year after year and bury that money in any sort of slush fund.

                  Members of that committee have worked very hard to come up with such a plan for the board to consider.

                  The finance committee plan will be discussed at the Agenda Review meeting on Tuesday August 23 in the Delaware Room of the Anthem Center at 9:30 AM

                  All homeowners are invited to attend and make any comments they wish. 

                  The final version of the plan will be formally presented to the board at the board meeting on Thursday August 25 in the Delaware room at 1:30 PM.

                  All homeowners are invited to attend and make any comments they wish.  The board will then decide to adopt the plan, modify and then adopt the plan or to reject any plan.

                  Personally I want my share of the surplus returned to me – and to you. 

                  I do not think any surplus should be deposited into the reserve fund unless there is a legitimate and critical need to do so.

                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                  Got a comment?  

                  What do you believe should be done with surplus funds?

                  Placed in a Reserve?

                  Returned to Unit Owners?

                  Let us know your feelings.  

                  Send your comments to:


                  1. From Robert Opinions

                    Tim - Thank you for an excellent "Layman's" explanation regarding surplus funds - of course I believe the funds should be returned.

                    My question:

                    What would prevent the Board from "making sure" all the operating expenses are actually "spent" during the year by throwing the money away on unnecessary and superfluous items (remember all those meetings at dinners at the "M" when Ms. Seddon was hired)?

                    Just like when I previously worked for an Agency in the Federal Government where, at the end of the year, $$$ was thrown away on anything because "you had to spend the money in the budget because they'd cut the budget for next year"

                  1. From Danny Opinions

                    I'm with you. If there is extra money that was paid by homeowners like you and me, it should be returned to the homeowners.

                    The SCA Board have no authority or right to do anything else with our money.

                    Return the funds or use the funds to lower the HOA fees next year.


                    Thank you for your article.
                    1. Why shouldn't the Board just use the money to donate to a favorite charity, say perhaps the Foundation for Assisting Seniors, or some other. Or maybe they could use the money to fund a restaurant, since they seem to want that regardless of the history. Why ask the residents what to do with surplus, or ask the only CPA on the Board? Even better, lets have the Association buy up a few homes and then provide refugees the opportunity to participate in Sun City Anthem.

                      I'm sure there are lost of creative ways to spend the money before it is considered surplus.
                  1. To Robert N...from...Tim Stebbins

                    As far as I know there is nothing to prevent the board from "dumping" surplus cash on worthless items at the end of the year - except, if that can be documented to show it was spent on items NOT in the budget a complaint can be filed with the Ombudsman for breach of fiduciary duty.

                  2. From Tim Codero

                    Danny, you are right on.

                    The normal way to return any surplus is by a reduction in assessments for the subsequent year.

                    It can also be done by sending every member a check but that is cumbersome and expensive.

                    1. From Hollis Opinions

                      The surplus funds should be put into a reserve account… BUT THAT NEEDS TO HAVE A CAP PUT ON IT.

                      When that account is maxed…the rest should be returned.

                      No extra “optional” accounts..!

                      1. From Kathy Opinions

                        I'm not sure why there is even a question about returned money if we have over paid.

                        Think about it; you're a homeowner that overpaid one of your bills.

                        You either want credit or most likely, your money back.

                        As a Realtor, working in selling and closing homes, you either come to the table owing nothing, owing something, or you will be expecting a return of probably some of your mortgage back. (it's called -I paid to much) and Title will tell you that to expect as a refund.

                        Am I missing something?

                        At the check stand, you overpaid, they return your money.

                        This shouldn't even be a question.

                        If we all overpaid, RETURN OUR MONEY. We will decide what to do with it, NOT the board.

                        Ask yourself; What is the RIGHT thing to do?

                      2. I would like to make one comment about all of readers who have shared their views on this matter...

                        First, we encourage all of you to continue doing so.

                        Second, these comments, whether you agree or disagree with them , are thought provoking and intelligent.

                        Note that there are NO INSULTS, nor do any of these individuals HIDE BEHIND AN ALIAS...

                        ...something other blogs readily allow, which in our opinion, demonstrates rhetoric all too often expressing DEMEANING, DEROGATORY, HUMILIATING, CHILDISH, and HARASSING behavior.

                        As owner of Anthem Opinions, thank you for allowing our blog to do what a blog SHOULD DO...

                        ...provide worthwhile information and remain above a line of DECENCY, refusing to SINK TO A LEVEL others find an acceptable means of communication.

                  Nevada Policy Research Institute Website Discloses
                  Public Employee Income Packages

                   Seeks Public Disclosure
                  Public Employees' Retirement System

                   your-tax-dollars-at-work.jpg (250×220)

                  A conservative organization is seeking to have a judge force Nevada's Public Employees' Retirement System to release details about retiree payouts.
                  The Nevada Policy Research Institute filed a petition in Carson City court this week requesting the move.
                  The group charges that PERS changed its record-keeping to hide information that's supposed to be public.
                  Officials from the system declined comment.
                  No court date has been set for the group's petition.
                  Nevada Policy Research Institute maintains a website called "Transparent Nevada" that shows salary and benefit information for public employees.
                  The organization says it found PERS no longer lists its data by the retiree's name, but by a Social Security number that's confidential and not releasable.
                  NPRI says PERS won't put the information in a more usable format, and is circumventing Nevada's public records law.
                  What to see who earns what in Henderson?
                  A couple of 2015...
                  Tracy Bowers: Senior Director of Public Affairs 
                  Regular Annual Salary
                  Other Pay
                  TOTAL PACKAGE

                  Josh Reid: City Attorney
                  Regular Annual Salary
                  Other Pay
                  TOTAL PACKAGE

                  What is absolutely ASTONISHING is a category entitled "other pay" which is not detailed.
                  How about this "extra pay" in 2015...NOT INCLUDING SALARY AND BENEFITS?
                  Sheila Dugan: Recreation Services Manager$133,631.79
                  Paul Brooksbank: Fire Captain$104,156.06
                  Jacob Snow: City Manager: $110,044.99
                  Thaddeus Yurek III: Police Lieutenant: $68.045.88
                  Analyzing these incomes even further...this will totally shock most of you:

                  1,262 Henderson employes of the total of 3,310...


                  ..had a total package EXCEEDING $100,000


                3. The exact Part B premium you'll pay in 2017, however, could be even higher if you're enrolling in Part B for the first time next year or your income subjects you to Medicare premium adjustments.
                4. The standard Part B premium paid by new enrollees next year will be $134.00, which is up from $121.80 in 2016.
                5. Your Tax Dollars at Work !

                  Tim Stebbins

                  This is a response to the request from a valued Anthem Opinions reader,  regarding the proper procedure to file a complaint with the Nevada Real Estate Division concerning misconduct of an officer of our community organization.

                  The proper procedure is to file a complaint is on a specific form provided by the Nevada Real Estate Division called an Intervention Affidavit. 

                  You can obtain this form by clicking on this link:

                  You have a right to do this under Nevada law.

                  As in any government bureaucracy this is a formal procedure with specific steps.   
                  While not too difficult, it is beyond the scope of what I can simply post on Anthem Opinions.

                  I suggest a good way to learn how to do this is to ask the Nevada Ombudsman for Owners in Common Interest Communities. 
                  It is a duty of the Ombudsman to train and assist homeowners in this procedure. 
                  The Ombudsman is Ms. Sharon Jackson.

                  The Ombudsman holds a “Forum” where homeowners can discuss issues such as this at 9:00 AM on the last Friday of every month at:

                  The Bradley State Office Building
                  2501 East Sahara Avenue
                  Las Vegas

                   (near Eastern Avenue and Sahara Avenue). 

                  These meetings are usually very informative.

                  I plan to attend that meeting and would be happy to accompany you to that session if you would like.

                  If you wish to move ahead more quickly you can telephone the Program Training Officer, Ms. Stacee Spoerl (who reports to the Ombudsman), at (702) 486-4480
                  Stacee will be happy to arrange a meeting with you to explain exactly what you can do and how to do it.

                  You can also contact the Ombudsman, Ms. Jackson, directly at (702) 486-4480
                  She too will be happy to arrange a meeting where your issues/concerns/complaint can be discussed.

                  All the services of the Ombudsman and her staff are free.

                  I will add that I have reviewed our governing documents and the applicable Nevada law. 

                  I was not able to find anything where an officer or board member can act unilaterally to spend association money without formal approval by the board.

                  If I can be of any further assistance, my direct email address is:

                  Tim Stebbins
                  "Nevada Know How"
                  Anthem Opinions

                  Sun City Anthem


                  The Main Operating Fund's Surplus

                  HOA.JPG (2303×1954)

                   Forrest Quinn

                  Former Chairman
                  Sun City Anthem Finance Committee

                   June 27, 2016

                  Does SCA have a Surplus?

                  Yes.  Per SCA’s CC&Rs, 2015’s year-end surplus was approximately $1.2 million or about $170 per home.

                  NRS 116.3114 details how to treat a HOA surplus

                  Surplus funds.  

                  Unless otherwise provided in the declaration,
                  any surplus funds of the association remaining after payment of or provision for common expenses and any prepayment of reserves must be paid to the units’ owners in proportion to their liabilities for common expenses or credited to them to reduce their future assessments for common expenses.

                  To date, the “Surplus Funds” debate centered on the absence of adequate guidance from the Nevada Real Estate Division on the meaning of Surplus Funds.  However, their advice is not required as SCA’s CC&Rs provide that necessary guidance.  Note that NRS 116.3114’s lead-in phrase above begins with “Unless otherwise provided…”  This phrase authorizes SCA to rely on its CC&R declarations to address its Surplus Funds.

                  SCA’s CC&R Sec. 8.1(e) on Surplus Funds

                  SCA CC&R 8.1(e) The amount to be raised by Base Assessments during a fiscal Year shall be equal to        
                  (i) the Operating Budget for such period, plus
                  (ii) the Reserve Budget to be set aside for said period, less
                  the amount attributable to the Operating Budget collected but not disbursed in the immediately preceding fiscal year or partial fiscal year; provide, however, that in lieu of such subtraction the Board may elect to refund said surplus to the Owners or deposit the funds into the reserve account. The difference between “collected but not dispersed” means surplus or excess.  


                  Collections – Disbursements = Surplus (or Deficit)

                  The terms “collected” and “disbursed” refer to cash transactions.  The CC&Rs do not refer to non-cash transactions like depreciation or accrued liabilities.  Thus, this surplus definition is based on cash flow accounting, not accrual accounting.  After the surplus is determined, like NRS 116.3114, the CC&Rs give the Board only two choices to dispose of the surplus, either refund the surplus to the homeowner’s, or deposit the funds into the Reserve Fund.

                  Section 8.1(e) also states that the board may revise the annual budget and adjust the assessment from time-to-time during the budget year.  In that context, the Board has the discretion to apply such excess amount to the operating account, the reserve account or otherwise, subject to the right of Members to disapprove the revised budget.

                  How Large is SCA’s Surplus?

                  SCA’s accumulated surpluses can be approximately determined by examining SCA’s adjusted (See Endnote) year-end balance sheet.

                  The balance sheet equation is: 

                   Assets = Liabilities + Fund Balance,

                  Rearranging this equation:
                  Assets – Liabilities = Fund Balance = Accumulated Surplus

                  The equation above reads:  When the fund’s assets exceed the claims on those assets (liabilities), the fund has a surplus

                  SCA’s end-of-year surpluses were approximately:

                  Year Ending 2013 - $650,000 or about $91 per home.

                  Year Ending 2014 - $1,150,000 or about $161 per home.

                  Year Ending 2015 - $1,200,000 or about $170 per home.

                  The above results are not independent.  

                  A $650,000 2013 refund would reduce subsequent surpluses by $650,000. 

                  I empirically tested these cash reductions, and they did not cause any monthly cash flow shortages in either 2014 or 2015.


                  Regarding Surplus Funds, NRS 116.3114 defers to a HOA’s CC&R declarations.  SCA’s CC&R’s both define Surplus Funds and they specify how Surplus Funds should be disposed.  As of the end of 2015, SCA’s accumulated Surplus per its CC&R’s was approximately $1.2 million.

                  Endnote:  Remove Property & Equipment from the Operating Fund’s Balance Sheet

                  SCA’s main operating fund requires at least one adjustment in order to accurately determine its accumulated surplus/deficit. 

                  In 2014, SCA’s then separate “Land, Building & Equipment” fund was merged into SCA’s Main Operating Fund and identified as “Property & Equipment.” 

                  The Land, Building & Equipment Fund should have been merged into the Reserve Fund

                  This merger distorted the Main Association’s Fund Balance (Surplus) by $527,000 in 2014

                  By the end of 2015, the distortion was about $808,000, making the Surplus appear to be larger than it actually was.

                  There are four main reasons I believe this merger was improper:

                  1The purpose of fund accounting is to separate different activities into different funds for better management and control

                  The Operating Fund is intended to manage SCA’s day-to-day collections and payments over a one-year cycle.  There is no practical reason to park fixed assets with useful lives ranging from 5-15 years in the Operating Fund.

                  2Reserve funds are only for the repair, restoration and replacement of common elements (assets)

                  Many of the Property & Equipment assets were paid for by the Reserve Fund and then transferred into the Operating Fund.  There are instances when these assets are sold at the end of their useful life.  These sale proceeds remain in the Operating Fund, and are then used for general expenditures.

                  I believe this round-trip of cash from the Operating Fund, to the Reserve Fund and back to the Operating fund is a violation of the restrictive nature of the Reserve Fund.

                  3CC&R Section 8.1(a):  The Operating Budget must include, without limitation, the estimated annual revenue and expenditures of the association and any contributions to be made to the reserve account of the association.

                  Expenditures” are cash transactions. 

                  Depreciation is not a cash transaction. 

                  But with Property & Equipment in the Operating Fund, depreciation is recorded to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).  Including depreciation in the annual budget adds a layer of confusion without any benefit.  Moving Property & Equipment to the Reserve Fund removes this depreciation confusion.

                  4Currently, the Operating Fund’s income and expense statement includes two separate line items that result in double counting the decline in SCA’s asset values

                  These are the Reserve Transfer and the Depreciation Expense.  

                  The Reserve Transfer is the Reserve Specialist’s estimate of how much cash is required to provide for SCA’s decline in asset values.  

                  The Reserve Transfer is a required component of HOA budgeting.

                  Depreciation expense is now recorded in the Operating Fund because the LB&E fund was (inappropriately) merged into the Operating Fund. 

                  Depreciation is an accountant’s method of estimating SCA’s decline in asset value. 

                  SCA’s depreciation expense is much smaller than the Reserve Transfer.  This is because accounting depreciation applies only to a much smaller sub-set of SCA's assets (the Capitalized Assets) compared to the Reserve Specialist’s task of evaluating all of SCA’s assets with a remaining useful life of less than 30 years.  

                   Including both of these estimates of asset decline in the budget is double  counting.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                  Got a comment on Forrest's article?  

                  Send it to us at:

                  1. From Jim Mayfield...Sun City Anthem Board Opinions

                    I have read the analysis by Forrest Quinn and find it a thoroughly professional analysis of the issue.

                    I know how long it takes to research the issues and to write an article such as the one written by Mr. Quinn.

                    Part of the value added to the public discussion by Mr. Quinn's article is that he goes into the accounting subjects at a more detail level than I did in my position paper. While the discussion may seem a little too detailed and confusing to the average person who isn't a CPA, documenting the detail accounting treatment and reporting analysis will be most useful for future SCA CFOs and members of an SCA Member financial advising group.

                    Now here is the really interesting point. Without any collaboration or coordination, Mr. Quinn and I reached virtually the same conclusion and the same computation of the amount of surplus funds as of December 31, 2015, based upon the audited financial statements for 2015.

                    The amount of surplus funds at the end of 2015 was approximately $1.2 million. The only difference between our final recommendations is on how the surplus funds should be credited to the Members (SCA homeowners), and I suspect that we are not really apart on this issue.

                    One of the uses authorized under NRS 116.3114 is to use surplus funds to reduce future assessments from the Members. The 2016 budget, ratified by the SCA homeowners, contains a deficit of approximately $585,00. Using a portion of the 2015 surplus funds to fund the deficit avoided having to increase the annual assessment to homeowners in 2016.

                    If the amount of the 2016 deficit is subtracted from the $1.2 million of accumulated surplus funds, a residual amount of just over $600,00 of surplus funds must still be distributed to SCA homeowners, in accordance with the options provided in NRS 116.3114.

                    My view is that the best distribution of the surplus funds will be to immediately make a special transfer of $600,000 to the SCA reserve fund.

                    As frequently reported, including at the June Board meeting by the new CFO, the repairs at Liberty Center will be largely charged to the reserve fund, in accordance with Nevada law. (Note, this is a position upon which both Mr. Quinn and I also agree.)

                    The transfer of $600,000 of surplus funds to the reserve funds will help defray the cost of the repairs and the impairment of the percent of funding of SCA's reserves.

                    I shall have placed on the July agenda two action items to address surplus funds. The first action item will be to authorize a special transfer to the reserve fund of $600,000. This will allow the amount of funds transferred to the reserve fund to be part of the calculation used by the reserve specialist in the 2016 Reserve Study Update.

                    I shall also place on the agenda a policy that will define surplus funds so that the issue is not just handled this time but will provide a protocol for defining surplus funds in the future so that the distribution requirements in NRS 116.3114 can be enforced in the future.

                    I have been asked: "When will the SCA Board finally do something about surplus funds?" My answer is never, unless the SCA homeowners massively protest and demand action. Mr. Quinn and I have done our jobs. Now you must do your jobs. Let the Board know that you demand action by approving the two action items I will place on the July Board Agenda.

                    I also hope that all of the blogs will support the work done by Mr. Quinn and me by actively encouraging SCA homeowners to support resolution of the current surplus funds problem and a long-term resolution of this divisive subject.


                  Corruption on H.O.A. Boards Will No Longer Be Tolerated

                  ar129616307504158.JPG (800×551)

                  Anthem Highlands President Removed

                  Must Personally Pay Hearing Costs & Legal Fees


                  Tim Stebbins

                  Basic information

                  The Commission for Common-Interest Communities (the Commission) is a tribunal of 7 persons appointed by the Governor with the power to impose disciplinary action on misbehaving directors and officers in Homeowner Associations (HOAs).

                  The Nevada Real Estate Division (the Division) is the government body responsible for enforcing the laws and regulations pertaining to HOAs.

                  When homeowners in HOAs elect directors to the executive board of their community, those directors gain substantial powers and also real responsibilities and accountability. 

                  Often this goes to their head and the directors develop an ego boost, particularly if they are elected by the other directors to be president of the association.

                  Too often the association attorney “strokes” the ego of the board members and tells them they are all powerful and can do whatever they wish

                  The attorney assures them they will never be held personally accountable.  

                  This can lead to all kinds of bad behaviors to the detriment of the homeowners.

                  In a significant and precedent setting ruling at a hearing last week that has changed ...

                  ... for the good of homeowners

                  The Commission held the president of our neighbor community, Anthem Highlands, personally liable to pay hearing costs well over $4,000 for autocratic and dictatorial behavior.

                  In addition the Commission removed the president from the board effective immediately and ordered he not be a member of any HOA board in Nevada for at least 5 years.

                  How ironic...the address of the association is 2792 Crookston in Henderson.

                  Normally the remaining board members can appoint a replacement, but not in this case. 

                  The Commission ordered a new special election be held as soon as possible.

                  The charges were brought by the relatively new head of the Division, Mr. Joseph Decker

                  josephDecker.jpg (298×337)

                  Mr. Decker is a very competent administrator with a no nonsense agenda. 

                  The prosecutor was Senior Deputy Attorney General Michelle Briggs

                  She is a skillful and aggressive attorney recognized as the authority on HOA law.

                  Because the president of Anthem Highlands chose to use the association attorney as his own attorney for the hearing he must also personally pay for all legal fees and costs

                  Neither the association nor the insurance company will pay anything

                  This is really good news for the homeowners.

                  The president’s attorney tried all kinds of tactics to delay and confuse the hearing with multiple motions. 

                  The Commission rejected all of them and proceeded with the hearing. 

                  The court stenographer was sworn in; witnesses were sworn in.  

                  Testimony and cross-examination occurred as well as introduction of multiple evidence documents. 

                  The Commission stood in judgement and ruled as noted above.

                  The final result is the homeowners in Anthem Highlands were protected from all costs and relieved of a very bad board member.

                  The message is now clear...

                  The responsibilities of directors and officers are a very serious matter. 

                  What is to be learned from this ? 

                  A message to ANY and ALL Board Members....

                  Take them seriously, or face...



                  You'll Pay Your Own Legal Bills

                  Got a comment or a question for Tim?

                  Send it to us at:


                  1. From Robert Opinions

                    Let's just hope that our Board can see the writing on the wall, and that egotistical arrogance doesn't blind them to what COULD happen.P.S. I would be interested to know what actions by that President precipitated his removal.
                  2. June 20, 2016 at 7:41 AM
                  3. From Lawrence Stebbins (Anthem Opinions)

                    Great article by Tim. Is the law retroactive?

                    Would be nice wouldn’t it.
                  4. From Tim Stebbins (Anthem Opinions) Peterson

                    Yes, it is, Lawrence.


                  Board Director Discusses Sun City Anthem
                  Surplus Funds...Exposes Potential Problems under Current System
                  fund-management-operations-image1.jpg (640×480)
                  Board Director Jim Mayfield has prepared a detailed memorandum discussing association funds that he has asked Anthem Opinions to publish on his behalf.
                  Mr. Mayfield's financial background is second to none in our opinion and his ability to INTELLIGENTLY analyze the current manner in which our community funds are managed...specifically those associated with accumulated surplus.
                  States Mr. Mayfield.....
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -

                  Surplus Funds

                   June 8, 2016

                  This memorandum contains explanations, analysis and recommendations related to the issue of Surplus Funds. It is provided to help you understand my views on why Sun City Anthem (“SCA”) is not correctly calculating or distributing Surplus Funds in accordance with the intent of NRS 116.3114.

                  Discussion of the Issue and Recommendations

                  The Issue

                  Sun City Anthem has used a practice for accumulating Surplus Funds for “additional working capital” for undefined, unbudgeted future contingencies. Such a financial practice is acceptable in commercial corporate enterprises. But, I believe the clear intent of NRS 116.3144 is to prohibit the practice in a Common Interest Community in Nevada.

                  Accordingly, accumulated Surplus Funds must be calculated without regard to undefined, unbudgeted contingencies and distributed annually in accordance with NRS 116.3114.

                  The Problem

                  NRS 116.3114 is clear and specific about the legal requirements for the disposition of Surplus Funds.

                  However, NRS 116.3114 is silent on the definition of Surplus Funds or how to calculate them.

                  Research History

                  I am informed that Sun City Anthem requested a legal opinion regarding Surplus Funds from its legal counsel. I was orally informed that legal counsel declined to provide a written opinion on how to calculate Surplus Funds because of the lack of definition of the term in NRS 116.3114.

                  In response to inquiries from Sun City Anthem homeowners (“Members”), the Board requested SCA’s independent certified public accountants (CPAs”) to provide an accounting interpretation regarding compliance with NRS 116.3114 for the use of Surplus Funds if used to provide excess working capital for undefined, unbudgeted contingencies.

                  I am informed that the CPAs declined the request due to the absence of:
                  • Definition of Surplus Funds in NRS 116.3114,
                  • Legal opinion on the definition of Surplus Funds, and
                  • Professional requirements, GAAP or statutory, to include such information in footnotes to financial statements on which they issue an opinion.
                  In the absence of statutory definition or professional written legal or accounting opinions on the definition of and calculation methodology for Surplus Funds, the definition of Surplus Funds and the methodology for calculating Surplus Funds requires interpretation and written direction from The Office of the Ombudsman.

                  The Office of the Ombudsman has refused to provide written direction.

                  But, the Office of the Ombudsman has provided informal direction that is not specific, makes no sense, and is worthless, since it is nether official nor in writing.

                  Proposed Definition of Surplus Funds

                  Surplus Funds shall be defined as accumulated working capital (Total Current Assets less Total Current Liabilities) reported on the annual audited balance sheet for the Operating Fund, less the future Operating Fund
                  • Commitments identified in the footnotes of the annual audited financial statements, and
                  • Budget deficit, if one, for the next fiscal year contained in the adopted and ratified budget for the next fiscal year.
                  The amount of and proposed distribution plan for Surplus Funds as of the end of a previous fiscal year shall be reported to the unit owners and approved by the Executive Board at a public meeting of the Executive Board held within sixty-days of receipt of the annual audited financial statements for the previous fiscal year.

                  The independent CPAs shall insure that the amount and disposition of Surplus Funds for the previous fiscal year are reported in the footnotes to the annual audited financial statements of Sun City Anthem for the next fiscal year.

                  Example of Implementation of Recommended Definition

                  Accountants, financial professionals, and attorneys frequently use terms with specific meanings that aren’t well understood by the general public. Therefore, I present below an example of how my recommended definition would be applied at Sun City Anthem, based upon information from the audited SCA financial statements as of December 31, 2015.

                  I also include answers to frequently asked questions (“FAQ”) received from Members related to Surplus Funds.

                  Calculation of Surplus Funds as of December 31
                  Operating Fund                                     2015                2014

                  Total Current Assets                     $ 2,994,264        $ 2,582,826
                  Less: Total Current Liabilities         1,803,562           1,696,264
                  Accumulated Working Capital       $1,190,072         $   886,052

                  Commitments                                            None              None
                  2016 Operating Fund Budget Deficit     $ 585,300         None

                  Surplus Funds                                     $ 604,964        $ 886,052

                  Frequently Asked Questions

                  FAQ 1. What are commitments?

                  Commitments are legal obligations of the Common Interest Community for goods and services not yet received that could not be recognized as incurred liabilities as of the end of the previous fiscal year.

                  FAQ 2. How does a Common Interest Community account for the funds needed to complete capital projects approved in the budget for the preceding fiscal year?

                  Budget authorizations for a fiscal year expire as of the end of the fiscal year. Therefore, the approval of expenditures for partially completed capital projects and capital projects approved but not started in the previous fiscal year must be included in the budget for the next fiscal year.

                  If the costs of completing or starting previously approved capital projects will require the use of more funds than will be collected in revenues, net of operational expenditures, in the next fiscal year, a budget deficit should be budgeted to account for previously collected revenues intended for capital projects.

                  FAQ 3. Shouldn’t a Common Interest Community accumulate excess working capital to provide for fluctuations in the annual cash flow cycle?


                  Most Common Interest Communities, including Sun City Anthem, begin the year with substantial cash received from prepaid annual assessments from unit owners who have prepaid for the entire next fiscal year. Quarterly or monthly payments of unit owner assessments (at Sun City Anthem these are quarterly installments) are due and must be paid at the beginning of the first month of each quarter.

                  These two sources of cash, collected in advance of related expenditures, provide a de facto loan and cash cushion from which to plan to fund variances in the annual cash flow cycle.

                  The accumulation of Surplus Funds to underwrite poor cash management or inexact budgets isn’t authorized in NRS 116.3114 nor can it be justified under the business judgment rule.

                  FAQ 4. What action should a Common Interest Community take to fund the cash requirements for an expenditure that was not anticipated in the approved annual budget, including the repayment of a necessary loan?

                  Small expenditures can and should be funded by reducing non-essential expenditures and the use of cash management strategies.

                  Large, unanticipated expenditures can be funded by deferral of capital expenditures, loans, increasing the annual assessment, imposition of a special assessments, and use of aggressive cash management strategies.

                  Loan payments should be a budgeted item in the operating fund budget.

                  In any event, the accumulation of Surplus Funds isn’t authorized in NRS 116.3114 for undefined, unbudgeted contingencies.

                  FAQ 5. What are the dangers in using surplus funds for excess working capital?

                  Besides the risks associated with non-compliance with State law, excess working capital in a CIC fosters imprecise budgeting, cash slush funds that can be used for unauthorized purposes, impairment of transparency related to budget variances, and excessive holding on the money of SCA members.

                  James N. Mayfield, Director
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                  Got a question for Mr. Mayfield?

                  A comment on this analysis?

                  Send it to us at:


                6. Who is Responsible for What in Sun City Anthem

                  2093b2c.jpg (1000×626)
                  Tim Stebbins

                  Now that Sun City Anthem is self managed we all need to adjust our thinking and perspective on how questions and concerns we have about our community are to be addressed. 

                  Our General Manager, Sandy Seddon, is responsible for all day-to-day management issues in our wonderful community. 

                  The Board is NOT involved with such matters.  The board is only responsible for governance matters.

                  These are separate and distinct responsibilities.

                  Sandy has a competent staff to address any and all of our concerns or complaints about management issues.

                  To help self management work to the benefit of all of us we need to understand what is called a "paradigm shift"....

                  ... a new way of thinking and acting.

                  If we see a need for action on any of our common elements, activities or community operations those are management issues and are to be directed to the general manager for possible action.

                  The board has discussed this issue and decided no board member is to respond to or even comment on concerns or complaints presented to them by neighbors, friends or anyone else.  They are to immediately tell the person to contact Sandy Seddon.

                  Mrs. Seddon can be reached as follows:

                  Our Information Page entitled " Sun City Anthem Self-Management Administrative Directory" includes all email addresses and telephone numbers of various individuals who have responsibility for various functions and can be assessed through clicking on this link:

                  None of us should disappointed or offended when a board member tells us that.  In fact we should be proud of that board member for doing the right thing to make self management work.

                  We need to recognize that no board member is our personal messenger to pass our concerns or complaints to Sandy.  It is our personal responsibility to do that.

                  This is how self management works and I hope we all will cooperate so we can have the best community ever.

                  Executive Session Meetings
                  closed-door-meeting-sign.png (279×181)
                  Tim Stebbins
                  "Nevada Know How"

                  Recently there has been some controversy and apparent confusion about improper executive session meetings held by at least one of the SCA committees.

                  I have been asked to provide information about this topic learned from the Nevada Ombudsman training courses and discussions. I hope this information will aid both the governance and the management of our wonderful community.

                  Executive session meetings are held by the board and are closed to members. 

                  This is a serious matter because it restricts transparency of SCA operations. 

                  Thus Nevada law strictly limits permissible topics for such meetings to sensitive issues such as discussion of personal information about individual homeowners.

                  Committees (as opposed to Clubsare an extension of the board and are held to the same standards.

                  Nevada law states:

                   “the committee and its members - - are subject to all - - requirements of the executive board and its members.”

                  I reviewed the agenda for such a recent committee meeting.

                  It appears very few, if any agenda items for the closed meeting meet the test for permissible topics imposed by the State.

                  Thus the committee was not in compliance with Nevada law by holding the so called closed executive session meeting.

                  Often committee members are not as familiar with laws concerning proper conduct of meetings as board members and all management personnel who  hold a certificate as a community manager (CAM) issued by the Nevada Real Estate Division. 

                  Thus the committee chairman and other members are reliant on board member liaisons and management Community Association Managers to inform them of the applicable laws and help them be in compliance.

                   In fact Nevada law requires Community Association Managers to advise board members (and committee members) how to be in compliance with laws.

                  It certainly appears there was a breakdown in communications in this case.

                  We can hope as we progress in self-management this will not happen again.

                        April 18, 2016 at 8:14 AM
                  1. From Board Director Jim Opinions

                    I read Tim's article this morning on your blog, and I believe it too broadly applies language in NRS 116.31031(8).

                    Before I begin my reason for my interpretation, I want to state FOR THE RECORD my positions on committee executive sessions. I have never liked the concept of committees being able to hold secret meetings under the guise of an executive sessions. Most of the time, the subject matters discussed in these secret meetings wouldn't qualify if they were Board meetings. The reason for these meetings is to avoid public scrutiny of matters that a minority of people are trying to accomplish that they know lack popular support or a minority of people are trying to direct the management process.

                    I do not agree with Tim that NRS 116 prohibits such meetings for all committees that a Board appoints. A Board appoints two types of committees. One type ("Type 1") is appointed to "conduct hearings on alleged violations and to impose fines". (See NRS 116.31031(8).) SCA examples of this type of committee are the ARC and Covenants Committees.

                    A second type of committee is what is referred to as an ("Type 2") advisory committee. Advisory committees do not have delegated authority from the Board to act on alleged violations or to impose fines on behalf of the Board. All actions of an advisory committee are strictly recommendations and must come before the Board for approval before the action is binding. Therefore, advisory committees--Type 2--are not subject to compliance with meeting standards prescribed for Boards and Type 1 committees in NRS 116. SCA has sought advice from both legal counsel and NRED on this subject, both of which have orally supported this position in the past.

                    NOTE: I believe that Section 4.11 in the BPM comes dangerously close to empowering Type 2 committees with decision making authority that would make them subject to NRS 116.31031(8). For this reason, I have proposed when the revised BPM comes to the Board for approval that Section 4.11 be revoked.

                    Tim, I hope you will consider issuing a clarification of your opinion to reflect the different rules for the two types of committees.
                    1. From Tim Mayfleld...via Anthem Opinions


                      I have never heard of "type 1" and "type 2" committees. So that concept is new to me.

                      NRS 116 only mentions 3 types of committees - ARC, Covenants and Nominating. We do not have a nominating committee. But it does have open language about other types of committees that may be created by the association.

                      NRS 82 provides for the association to create committees as desired.

                      I think the bottom line here is that a committee cannot have a notice and agenda that covers normal activities of the committee and then call it an "executive session" and deny attendance by members.

                      I believe that when a committee uses the term "executive session" they are bound by the law that addresses such type of meeting.
                  1. Jim & Tim,

                    Anthem Opinions thanks both of you for this feedback.

                    We would like to add an additional comment from our blog perspective.

                    This is the type of commentary INTELLIGENT individuals post without having to resort to demeaning and harassing commentary found all too often elsewhere.

                    It demonstrates how a community publication can provide valued and informative information, including agreement and disagreement, without the necessity of vulgarities and childish behavior that could only impress the most sadistic of individuals who find such trash of value.

                    It is commentary such as yours that has made Anthem Opinions the #1 read blog in Sun City Anthem, now averaging between 1,700 and 2,000 separate readers clicking on our site each and every day.

                    Once again, to you...and to all our readers who appreciate Anthem Opinions' insistence on civility...

                    Thank you.
                  2. From Jim Stebbins...via...Anthem Opinions

                    Type 1 and Type 2 are terms I use to describe the difference between committees with enforcement jurisdiction that are described in NRS 116. As with most issues related to NRS 116, the law is so poorly crafted that interpretations are needed to infer the intent of the law. NRS 116.31031(8) is a perfect example of ambiguity. I believe that this section of NRS 116 leaves not doubt as to the status and requirements for a committee that is authorized to "conduct hearings on alleged violations and to impose fines". But, the absence of language about the status of committees that are not authorized to "conduct hearings on alleged violations and to impose fines" leaves a the matter open for interpretation and thus the responsibility of the Board, not law, to set the requirements for what I refer to as Type 2 committees. Frankly, NRED and the Ombudsman have been zero help, as usual, in providing guidance on this subject. Even if NRED or the Ombudsman did provide guidance on the subject, their opinions have no legal standing.

                    In this environment, the best course of action is for the SCA Board to define in the BPM that all committees will follow the requirements of NRS 116 regarding notice, agenda, and meeting rules. The current BPM does not do this, and I will push after the new Board is seated to accomplish this objective.

                    I still think your interpretation is a stretch given the specific language in NRS 116.31031(8) and the absence of interpretation from NRED. BTW: I enjoy working with you because it is fun and productive to have civil discussions with someone who is well informed.
                  3. From Tim Mayfield...via...Anthem Opinions


                    I have never heard of "type 1" and "type 2" committees. So that concept is new to me.

                    NRS 116 only mentions 3 types of committees - ARC, Covenants and Nominating. We do not have a nominating committee. But it does have open language about other types of committees that may be created by the association.

                    NRS 82 provides for the association to create committees as desired.

                    I think the bottom line here is that a committee cannot have a notice and agenda that covers normal activities of the committee and then call it an "executive session" and deny attendance by members.

                    I believe that when a committee uses the term "executive session" they are bound by the law that addresses such type of meeting.


                  Required Changes to the Board Policy Manual 

                  A POSITION PAPER

                  James Mayfield
                  Sun City Anthem Board Director
                  March 10, 2016

                  In 2012, the Board initiated a process to evaluate SCA governance.  A consultant was used to help guide the Board in its deliberations.  Multiple, public workshops were conducted to engage the Members in the development process.  After a year of investigation, assessment, and communication with SCA Members, the initial Board Policy Manual (“BPM”) was adopted after the new Board was seated in 2013.

                  I was involved in the initial process as a committee chair and subsequently involved as a Board member.  In 2012 and 2013, I didn't approve of or believe in much of the proposed theory or content that was based upon the Carver Model.  Several concerns I expressed in 2012 have proved valid; however, several of my views and assessments have changed. While researching governance and developing the governance model presented last month, I reflected upon what has occurred since 2012 that has caused me to change certain of my views and to reinforce certain other views.

                  The purpose of this communication is to present my views on the BPM that are being discussed in a series of public discussion currently under way to examine changes needed to the PBM as a result of implementation of the self-management model. Several of the changes that I believe are need require an examination of the SCA culture; specifically, the Board must address changes to the role of the Board members, standing committees, and volunteers. I understand some of these changes will be difficult for some Members of our community to accept. But, I believe changes to the PBM are necessary to clearly articulate and set expectations related to changes to the SCA culture that are essential to insure success of self-management.
                  The Road to Now

                  Underlying Premises in 2012--2013

                  1.  In 2012, the Board and much of the SCA community believed that the management company was capable of operating SCA at a high level of performance. Therefore, SCA would be more effective and efficient if the Board, Advisory Teams, and residents wouldn't interfere in the management of SCA but focus on policy-driven governance.

                  2.  The Board believed that the correct organizational model for the Board was a structure organized along traditional management lines with a president and other Board officers functioning as a shadow management team.  The president and treasurer, in particular, were given authority to direct the management company without obtaining the approval of the whole Board, particularly between scheduled Board meeting. The Board also believed that Advisory Teams should be organized to parallel management functions, such as finance, facilities, and community activities.  The parallel management structure for governance was additionally reinforced by assigning Board members as liaisons, representing the Board, to Advisory Teams, with oversight authority over specific areas of operations.

                  3. The Board and community believed that Residents comprised a large pool of volunteers...
                  • with skills that were frequently better than skills within the management company, and
                  • could lower the cost of SCA operations by using volunteers in management operations.
                  4. The Board accepted, after multiple community workshops, that the Carver Model should not be implemented at SCA, except in a significantly modified version that incorporated beliefs presented in items 2 and 3 above.

                  Lessons Learned Since the Spring of 2013

                  1. Companies that offer management services to CICs (HOAs) in the US are not organized or staffed to provide a level of expertise or services needed to serve as the managing agent for large and/or complex CICs.

                  2. A large majority of large and/or complex CICs are self-managed in response to the unavailability of qualified management companies.

                  3. A high quality, experienced management team must be hired and provided a broad operating charter to manage the operations of the CIC in order for self-management to achieve desired expectations for self management.

                  4. The governing body of a CIC must be comprised of a set of equally empowered and informed governors with a commitment to collective governance and experience in controlling an organization through...
                  • setting policy,
                  • fiduciary oversight,
                  • resource allocation, strategic planning (both short-term and strategic), and
                  • measurement and assessment of written management performance objectives.
                  5. Underwriting management deficiencies with volunteer service to compensate for inadequate management performance...
                  • weakens the ability of The Board to hold management accountable for performance,
                  • camouflages poor management and individual employee performance, and
                  • places an unreliable, inconsistent resource into the management of SCA operations.
                  6. Imprecisely worded policies create difficulties in understanding the intent of the policy and establishment of intended boundaries and result in unintended interpretations.

                  7. The Executive Board (as defined in NRS116) is comprised or Directors, with equal rights, responsibilities, and fiduciary liability. Any power or authority granted to an individual director, including a Board officer, to act on behalf of the Board, interpret Board policy, or appoint Work Groups, members thereof, or Board liaison assignments violates the concept of equal and collective authority and accountability.

                  8. If Work Groups and the Board are organized in structures that parallel management functions, the inevitable result is that the Board, Work Groups, and other volunteers will engage in management functions instead of governance functions.

                  Current Opportunity

                  Recently the Board presented a presentation on Governance versus Management and definitions and distinctions that can be used in the development of policies to support these distinctions. The Board is engaged in a series of workshops to determine how the lessons learned over the past three years can be used to clarify the Board Policy Manual (PBM) and tailor it to support the separation of management and governance. This work is critical to amassing understandings within the SCA community of the changes that are necessary to promote the successful application of self-management. I am well aware that needed changes will obstruct current power bases within the volunteer structure, including on the Board. I expect and encourage a robust discussion of the changes that will be the responsibility of the Board to approve and implement. 

                  But, I firmly belief that any structures that deviate from the concept of seven equal directors or create the opportunity for volunteers to intervene in the management of SCA will result in adverse effects on implementation and long-term success of self-management.


                  NRS  116.31035
                  rules.of.the.road.jpg (299×303)
                  The Official Rules of Nevada Homeowners Associations Elections

                  As Researched by
                  Tim Stebbins

                  Publications containing mention of candidate or ballot question: Requirements; limitations.

                        1.  If an official publication contains any mention of a candidate or ballot question, the official publication must, upon request and under the same terms and conditions, provide equal space to all candidates or to a representative of an organization which supports the passage or defeat of the ballot question.

                        2.  If an official publication contains the views or opinions of the association, the executive board, a community manager or an officer, employee or agent of an association concerning an issue of official interest, the official publication must, upon request and under the same terms and conditions, provide equal space to opposing views and opinions of a unit’s owner of the common-interest community.

                        3.  If an association has a closed-circuit television station and that station interviews, or provides time to, a candidate or a representative of an organization which supports the passage or defeat of a ballot question, the closed-circuit television station must, under the same terms and conditions, allow equal time for all candidates or a representative of an opposing view to the ballot question.

                        4.  The association and its officers, employees and agents are immune from criminal or civil liability for any act or omission which arises out of the publication or disclosure of any information related to any person and which occurs in the course of carrying out any duties required pursuant to subsection 1, 2 or 3.

                        5.  As used in this section:

                        (a) “Issue of official interest” means:
                               (1) Any issue on which the executive board or the units’ owners will be voting, including, without limitation, elections; and
                               (2) The enactment or adoption of rules or regulations that will affect the common-interest community.

                        (b) “Official publication” means:
                               (1) An official website;
                               (2) An official newsletter or other similar publication that is circulated to each unit’s owner; or

                               (3) An official bulletin board that is available to each unit’s owner."

                  Social Security Has Some Changes
                  If you Haven't Filed Yet
                  social-security-administration.png (600×429)


                  Tim Stebbins
                  Some notable changes were made to how married couples will be able to collect those benefits during retirement.

                  Through a new budget ruling from Congress, "file-and-suspend" and "restricted applicationclaiming strategies – which have been available to millions of married Americans since 2000 – are about to become history.

                  Using the file-and-suspend strategy, a couple is able to maximize their benefits even further.

                  Let's say the two have both reached their full retirement age and one has been the primary earner. If the primary earner is eligible for a certain amount of Social Security benefits (for example, $2,000), then their spouse would be eligible for half of that amount.

                  Because these benefits are tied to the primary earner, the spouse cannot collect their benefits until the primary beneficiary files for Social Security.
                  The primary earner in this scenario can file for benefits at full retirement age, allowing for their spouse to receive their $1,000.

                  The primary earner can then suspend their own benefits until they reach the age of 70 to take advantage of the added suspended retirement benefits.

                  This strategy will no longer be available when the new legislation take effect on May 1.

                  Restricted application – which is still going to be available for another four years – is where an individual who is at least full retirement age, has not filed for any benefits previously and whose spouse has established a filing date (and could have suspended), files for just the spousal benefit that is based upon the spouse's record.

                  If the individual does not specifically file a restricted application, he or she will need to file for all benefits currently available to him or her.

                  These two strategies underscore the complexities of Social Security.

                  They also point to the importance of saving and planning ahead to ensure you'll have enough retirement income to meet your needs.

                  What this change means for you.

                  First, it is important to note that if you are already receiving benefits, you will not be affected by the changes.

                  If you were born on or before May 1, 1950, you will need to take action now to evaluate your options.

                  Should you wish to take advantage of the current file-and-suspend rules you must make your election to suspend your benefit by April 30, before the new ruling takes effect on May 1.

                  But, do not wait until the last minute — you can file three months in advance of your birthday.

                   Additionally, those who will turn 62 by December 31 can still use the file and suspend strategy when they reach their full retirement age of 66.

                  Another noteworthy date is those who were born on or before Jan. 1, 1954.

                  If you fall into that category, you will still be able to file a restricted claim of spousal benefits while allowing your own benefit to receive delayed retirement credits.

                  If you fall outside of these cut-off dates and had factored these claiming strategies into your retirement income plan, you will want to revisit your Social Security options to make adjustments to your retirement income plan.

                  Understand your options. 

                  Regardless of your age or stage, there are key steps you can take now to put yourself in a position to be financially prepared for retirement.

                  Be sure to get your Social Security statement.

                  You can do this by setting up an account on the Social Security Administration's website....

                  ...or you can a request a paper statement.

                   If you are at least 60 years old, a statement is mailed to you annually.

                  This statement will lay out your estimated benefits at early, full and maximum retirement age.

                  From there, see how your savings fare based on different life expectancy scenarios to figure out what works best for your situation.

                  By getting educated and understanding how much monthly income you are likely to receive from Social Security and other savings in retirement, you could be putting yourself in a position to retire better.

                  Even though these decisions may feel far away, it is important to keep retirement planning top of mind and factor these changes into your strategy.

                  Look at your Social Security options early in the planning process and make decisions with the long term in mind.

                   If you need a reality check on your retirement plans, it is better to get it sooner rather than later so you have enough time to adjust.

                  Need more help?

                  You can also call Social Security at (800) 772-1231 and speak to either an automated system or  a REAL PERSON Monday through Friday from 7:00am to 7:00pm.

                  The best day to call is Tuesday to avoid wait time.


                  You can stop by the local Social Security Office located at:

                  10416 S. Eastern Ave.

                  How Does the Nevada Presidential Caucus Work ?

                  nevada-caucus.jpg (1900×700)

                  Tim Stebbins
                  Anthem Opinions

                  The Nevada caucuses are less than two weeks away -- but what does that mean? 
                  What is a caucus?
                  Many of us relocated from states that use a primary election system....
                  ... a system where voters go to the polls to cast their ballots. 
                  Nevada uses the "caucus" system.
                  Here's a website as to the official "A B C's" of the Nevada caucus system.
                  There are only a handful of states that use the caucus; namely Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Iowa, and our very own Nevada.
                  Caucus-goers in Nevada elect delegates to county conventions...
                  ...who in turn elect delegates to state conventions. 
                  Those delegates are then sent to each party's national convention to vote for a candidate.
                  Republicans that pre-register to participate in the caucus use a paper ballot to vote.
                  Democrats literally divide the room...going to a section of the room supporting a particular candidate.  A section of the room is also dedicated to those undecided in their choice.
                  If a candidate does not get at least 15% of the people in the room in their favorother groups can try to absorb them.
                  Nevada is one of the first states to begin the presidential selection process, so the results can influence how the vote will go in other states. 
                  It will give a better handle on who will stay in the race and who will go.
                  Both the Democrats and the Republicans will hold their caucuses on different days this year. 
                  The Democratic caucus meets on February 20, 2016.
                  We've learned that the closest location to Sun City Anthem for those who wish to participate is:
                  Elise Wolff Elementary School
                  1001 Seven Hills Drive
                  Henderson, NV
                  For further information on the Democratic caucus, see this site:
                  Republicans will hold their caucus on February 23, 2016.
                  The closest location to Sun City Anthem for those who wish to participate will be right here at Anthem Center.
                  Republicans must pre-register NO LATER THAN February 13, 2015 in order to participate.
                  For full information on the Republican Presidential caucus, see this site:
                  In addition the Republican caucus will be held at Sun City Anthem's Anthem Center beginning at 5:00pm with all ballots having to be cast no later than 8:30pm.
                  For full information on the Democratic Presidential caucus, see this site:
                  Of course, to participate in either party's caucus, you must declare your party preference and be a registered voter in Clark County.
                  If you are not yet registered, it can be accomplished by clicking on this site.

                  If you're not familiar with the Nevada caucus system, we strongly encourage you to attend.  It makes for some very interesting "politicking".

                  Anthem Opinions Administration


                  Tax Concerns Regarding
                  Do it Yourself Restaurant

                  Tim Stebbins

                  Tom Revel ...the Vice Chair of the Sun City Anthem Finance Committee, made at last week's board meeting...

                  ...and the tax implications of SCA owning and operating a restaurant.

                  In my opinion, Tom may indeed have a point that must be considered.

                  Sun City Anthem files a Form 1120-H with the IRS, a special version of a corporate tax form specifically for homeowners associations.. 
                  ...a form that allows many benefits to HOAs.
                  This is a special version of a corporate tax form for HOAs and has many real benefits.

                  The rules under that form say...

                  At least 60% of the revenue must be from members via assessments and other miscellaneous items.


                  90% of the expenses must be for the operations of the association.

                  A key point is that members must be treated as members...

                  ... NOT as customers. 

                  Those going to the restaurant might be considered as customers and if that be the case,  that income may not be exempt from taxes. 

                  ...and could even prevent us from filing the desired Form 1120-H.

                  A few months ago the Finance Committee discovered potential tax problems from the way SCA handles revenue for the various fitness classes. 

                  Members are charged a small fee for the classes. 

                  Some goes to the instructor of the class, and some goes to SCA. 
                  The Finance Committee scrambled to adjust the way those fees are handled in order to avoid tax problems.

                  This concern MUST BE ADDRESSED should the Board of Directors determine that another restaurant be examined.


                  Power Belongs to the People
                  A Board of Directors
                  in Capital Improvement Decisions
                  Advisory Opinion 16-01

                  Joseph Decker
                  Department of Business & Industry
                  Real Estate Division

                  October 22, 2015

                  Advisory Conclusion:

                  The Board's Authority is dependent upon its express authority in the governing documents.  If the governing documents do not give the board authority to incur expense for or take action regarding a particular capital improvementthe owners must approve an amendment to the governing documents to expand the board's authority.

                  Surplus funds could be used to fund a capital improvement if the board has authority to impose the capital improvement, either through authority granted in the governing documents originally or after an amendment by a vote of the owners.  Application of surplus funds to such a capital improvement assessment would be consistent with NRS 116.3114.

                  The board may not put a capital improvement expense in the budget unless the board is authorized to take action regarding the improvement.  

                  Even then, the requirements of HRS 116.3115(9) must be met prior to including the expense item in the budget for ratification.  

                  According to NRS 116.3115(9), the board must provide 21 days notice to the owners of any meeting to consider or take action on a capital improvement assessment, even if surplus funds will be used, and comply with NRS 116.345(3) if applicable.

                  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                  What does this mean to Sun City Anthem?


                  The Sun City Anthem governing documents DO NOT CONTAIN any verbiage  granting the Board the individual power to impose any capital improvement regarding the construction or expansion of existing buildings.

                  They state...

                  "The board shall have the power and the right to terminate services or to change the use of the Common area...”.


                  As a result of this latest Nevada Real Estate Division Advisory Opinion, ANY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT THAT FALLS OUTSIDE THOSE CATEGORIES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE UNIT OWNERS.




                  In order to obtain such unit owner approval, IT MUST BE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNIT the case of Sun City Anthem, 3,773 of the 7,144 units MUST CAST APPROVAL, not a simple majority of those who cast a vote.



                  What can the Sun City Anthem Board do as a result of this ruling?

                  One of three choices...



                  The Board can ACCEPT THE DECISION and give the power back to the people.


                  The Board can look at a possible "loophole"....Section 7.9 of our governing documents

                  This section states the declarant controlled board can make changes as long as the Declarant is in control. 

                  That ceased in June of 2005 when the Sun City Anthem community transitioned away from Pulte, and no longer applies.

                  In addition Section 7.9 also states...

                  "The board shall have the power and the right to terminate services or to change the use of the Common area...”.

                  HOWEVER !

                  Note...that says nothing about adding new or expanding existing buildings or amenities.

                  It then goes on to say the board is to give notice of any change to all owners

                  That notice shall give the Owners 30 days to object to the change.

                  Thus far no board has EVER provided any such notice.

                  But...once notice is given... if at least 10% of unit owners (715) object to the change...THE CHANGE CANNOT BE MADE.

                  There are no other options.

                  Of course....the only interpretation of the law that has any real power is the one made by the State of Nevada, Real Estate Division.

                  That governmental agency has the authority and responsibility to make this interpretation....and...


                  WE MAKE TWO PROMISES TO YOU.



                  We at Anthem Opinions are looking at this from a POSITIVE STANDPOINT...believing that...

                  No greater opportunity has ever existed for a Sun City Anthem Board to display a commitment in representing the will of the people.

                  ...that their subsequent action will prove once and for all, if they ARE or ARE NOT...worthy of your trust and respect.

        's your turn....

                  Tell THEM and US how YOU, the unit owner, want this handled.

                  The email addresses of the board can be obtained by clicking on this link:
                  Our email address is:

                  Anthem Opinions Administration

                  1. From Dorothy Opinions

                    Yes, Power Belongs To The People, Not The SCA Board!

                    Yet, how do we wake up these silent majority residents to REACT AND MOBILIZE to place our community back in in all of our hands ?
                  2. Dorothy, we must find competent individuals who have the best interests of our community at heart, rather than some strange need to control, to become candidates in our upcoming Board election.

                    Write the members of this board and DEMAND they listen to the people...that this community is OURS...not THEIRS to toy with as they choose WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL.

                    DEMAND they STOP running to an association attorney every time they get a hang nail....needlessly spending our dues to the tune of approximately $400 per hour in order to look for reasons to justify the waste and incompetence this and a number of past boards have been controlled and ENDORSED by those who are every bit as incompetent, have demonstrated for years.

                    Most importantly...tell your friends that if change DOES NOT TAKE PLACE at the earliest opportunity, electing such incompetence will eventually catch up to all of us and have only one solution...

                    ...INCREASING DUES and/or depleting our reserves to accomplish LITTLE other than feed their insatiable appetites to WASTE the hard earned funds all of us have spent our working years to accumulate in hope of maintaining financial independence in our retirement years.

                    What Sun City Anthem must finally come to terms with is that Seff-Management, if led by incompetent individuals who have little relevant experience in financial matters, can only have one path..

                    1. From Robert Opinions

                      It is time that the HOA Board stops acting like Washington DC....They are spending OUR money, not their money.
                  1. From Bud Opinions

                    So what remedy and/or legal action is available to SCA residents to Stop this Board?

                    Do we just continue to complain about money being squandered by a Board out of control?

                    ABC 13 Darcy Spears where are you?

                    Isn’t this a Board deserving of “HOA Hall of Shame”?

                    I'm frustrated by the lack of action to correct a situation reported on week after week for several years.
                  2. Bud,

                    There is no feasible legal availability to stop this Board...except....if they pass a capital improvement that the community is not in favor of.

                    They don't realize HOW MANY RESIDENTS WILL JOIN IN THE EFFORT to obtain the number of votes to essentially override their decisions on capital improvements that are unpopular and expensive to our community.

                    If they cling to the "loophole" referred to in the article....

                    ...or look to an association attorney for guidance that is in direct conflict with the Real Estate Administrator's ruling...

           my opinion, it proves they are mere CONTROL FREAKS and are NOT FRIENDS OF THE COMMUNITY.

                    You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time.

                    The later is one of those moments in time.

                    I am confident that with effort and a commitment to "doing the right thing", we can and will obtain the necessary 715 residents to say "NO" to their ludicrous decisions in a formal manner...

                    ...something they could so easily avoid by simply allowing "the people" the right to decide their own fate on large financial expenditures.

                    Why we would have to resort to such tactics....demanding accountability and a voice in financial an indictment on the effectiveness of their leadership.

                    What they must understand is that denying us our rights to decide...


                    Join us in searching out new Board members who will have competence and integrity in representing their fellowman in a positive and unselfish manner.

                    Let's refuse to allow a FEW BAD APPLES to destroy the WHOLE BUNCH. 
                  3. From Jim Opinions

                    The board should answer only to the residents of this community, not to their own self interests

                7. When Can Homeowners Control Association Decisions?

                  Just what authority do homeowner/members have over significant matters in their community?

                  In most cases the Board makes decisions about association business, and member approval is not required.


                  ...there are some matters that are controlled by the homeowner....

                  ...One of which is referred to as a "capital improvement ” or “community improvement"  project.

                  These types of projects involve use of association money to:

                  1Add new amenities or common elements to the community.

                  2Significantly expand existing amenities or common elements.

                  3Substantially change amenities or common elements from their original intent to some other purpose.

                  The Administrator (the boss) of the Nevada Real Estate Division, the State entity that controls common-interest communities and HOAs, hasdetermined Nevada law requires homeowner approval is required for such actions.

                  The board does not have the authority to act on its own.

                  The Administrator has explained the law is based on the fact when a buyer purchases a home in a community, they are made aware of the amenities and common elements.

                  In the purchase contract, the buyer agrees to pay assessments (dues) for the operation, maintenance and reserves for future replacement of those amenities and common elements.

                  The buyer does not agree and cannot be obligated to pay such costs and expenses for additional “capital improvement” or “community improvement" projects...

                  ...unless a majority of the homeowner/members agree to spend the money for such projects.

                  In addition Nevada law requires any surplus funds at the end of the business year...

                  ... be returned to the homeowners...

         cashby credit to the next year’s assessments or some other purpose approved by a majority or the homeowner/members.

                  Should the Board approve any proposed capital improvement or community improvement project, they subsequently must submit the question to the homeowner/members for final approval.

                  Do you have an idea for a "capital improvement" or "community improvement" project?

                  Here in Sun City Anthem the Board has set up a process to consider your suggestions to utilize surplus funds for such projects.

                  First, a Project/Item Request Form (PIRF) must be completed, and we have one for you by simply clicking on this link:

                  It may be submitted by any homeowner/member, a committee, a service group, or by the Board.

                  The PIRF is then vetted...

                  ...considered, by the Community Life Style Committee to see if the project is suitable for Sun City Anthem, the Property and Grounds Committee for reasonability, and the Finance Committee to determine if sufficient funds are available.

                  If all three committees approve the project...

                  ... it is submitted to the Board for approval.

                  If the Board approves the project...

         must then be submitted to the homeowner/members for final approval before the project can proceed.

                  Because of the large size of Sun City Anthem, that requires a ballot be sent to all homeowner/members.

                  The probable result...

                   ...a great deal of difficulty in obtaining the approval from a majority of our homeowner/members. (3,573).

                  Got a question of comment ?

                  We're here to assist you in getting answers.  Send us an email at:

                  Tim Stebbins

                  1. From Forrest Opinions


                    I read you article regarding Tim Stebbins' pending information from Nevada Department of Real Estate regarding HOA Capital Expenditures.

                    Unless this is something new and enforced by NDRE in a time will be totally useless.

                    Those of us being involved taking the time to "watch dog" our SCA Board of Directors activities have learned...the BOD will do whatever they want regardless of what the membership wants or NRS rules say.

                    With the SCA attorney John Leach advising and running interference "protecting the BOD" and not looking out for the membership as one would think...will most likely result in no change regardless of this new information from Tim Stebbins.

                    NDRE and the Ombudsman ere influenced by the powerful gang of attorneys like John Leach.

                    When a case is filled with the "O", they sit on the case sometimes for years knowing very well the corrupt BOD will be long gone and no action taken or a reprimand letter with a slight hand slap.

                    I was one of the lucky ones...I filed a case in 2009 against our management company facilities director Bruno Panek for allowing a shade structure to be built without following the normal guidelines published by the Nevada Contractors License Board or just using common sense hiring a contractor. As a result the Independence Center $22,000 shade collapsed during a 2008 8" snow fall in SCA.

                    The "O" came back about a year later with a ruling...the then community manager was found guilty of dereliction of duty and told to attend some management classes. Bruno Panek was not punished, only mentioned of his poor work habits.

                    The SCA management company did not fire Bruno Panek for his negligence, nor did Roz Berman (SCA Board President) insist on any action to be taken against Bruno or require the management company to repay SCA he $22.000 shade structure collapse loss.

                    This is the way government works...everyone in "bed" together.

                    I sincerely hope this new evidence will have some "teeth" to force board members to follow the rules.

                  2. Forrest,

                    I can assure you...the article that will be published on Monday, November 2, 2015, will greatly surprise you ...AND The Board...

                    ...and has a substantial affect as to the Sun City Anthem financial future...

           well as the "character" of those chosen to represent residents.

                    It will place a burden on our leadership and provide to the community, proof, as to their feelings about their desire to be representatives of the populous...and their promises to "represent" substantial financial decisions.

                    Their subsequent actions will have a strong indication as to THEIR TRUE FEELINGS about "the people" versus their NEED to CONTROL.

                    Stay tuned.
                    1. From Barry Opinions

                      How does this article affect the decision of transforming to self management?

                      Does this mean a majority of the community must approve it?

                      I agree with Forrest F that there must be some teeth in the ruling.

                      Also under the current board policy manual the finance committee plays no role in determining if there are funds available for Community improvement projects.

                      There is a misconception regarding this issue in our community.
                    2. Barry, this issue has to be with spending for Capital Improvements, not transforming to self-management.

                      The Finance Committee will still be very much will other committees...but so will the unit owners in the order for capital projects to go forward.

                      Stay tuned for Monday's article.

                  Association Success is Well Within our Grasp...
                  An Anthem Opinions Editorial
                  f8c13a95fce42ef2c372a9d60b15537d30c8334c-thumb (125×200)

                  field2.jpg (240×240)

                  The purpose of Association Board of Directors is to create and administer direction for a community.

                  And...within that frame of thought....

                  ...we must realize It is unlikely that any Board or its members will have expertise in all areas that it  needs to properly administer the affairs of an association.

                  ...but it should be necessary that an individual Board member have a specific area of expertise that will enhance the decision making effectiveness of a community.

                  An example would be to have a CPA or a Certified Financial Planner on a board to better be familiar with budgeting and financial affairs. 

                  If a member has experience in Human Resources, that should be the individual who should be a strong influence in selecting those individuals to advise fellow Board members in achieving  the desired objectives.

                  For a person chosen as its president, a board member must have "people skills" addition to...relevant experience.

                  ...namely the ability to listen to others, have tact, have a basic understanding of the issues, and possess a friendly
                  personality to coordinate the efforts of those who are the backbone of the decision making core.

                  That individual must possess the ability to represent the "spirit" and "goodwill" of the community, making it a point to visit residents on a regular basis, taking note of their concerns, LISTENING TO order to report resident thought to fellow members of the Board.

                  That person is the "flag bearer" or "goodwill ambassador" of the leadership who must remain above "politics", leaving EGO at home.

                  We must accept the fact that It is virtually impossible for a Board of seven individuals to possess all these one is perfect...but, to fill their individual voids, the only answer in achieving their goals is to form committees to assist them in their efforts...

                  ...and closely follow the advice and recommendations those individuals provide.

                  The obvious question is "How do you find such individuals?"

                  This may surprise many, but that should not be a difficult task....


                  ...the Board members first,  make a concerted effort to create an atmosphere of "community" (making people feel they are welcome and needed), convincing them that their input is valued in achieving ultimate goals, and most importantly, choosing individuals who have DIFFERING order to obtain "both sides of the story" before a decision is rendered.

                  That is the key to PROGESS...differences of opinion !

                  Additionally, those individuals must be PROPERLY VETTED in order to determine the validity of their credentials to give proper advice...properly vetted by a PROFESSIONAL AGENCY to determine if what they state on resumes, is indeed, accurate.

                  For example, a finance committee should have expertise in the area of budgeting, spending control, and how to deal with relevant financial matters. They should encourage responsible spending, and provide reasons for their both Board and unit owners.

                  A Property & Grounds Committee should include individuals who have relevant experience in construction and bidding matters.

                  Decisions should be openly challenged, but those challenges should be made by those WHO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE to dispute their recommendations.

                  Thus...properly choosing members for a particular committee can provide a solid community advisory system of layered management. 

                  If concerns remain after committee recommendations, a Board of Directors can and should go outside these resources to seek out other experts...sharing that knowledge with respective committees....not to override their recommendations, but to ADD INPUT to them, in order to uncover any unforeseen elements. 

                  That is how you FULLY resolve issues....covering all bases PRIOR to making a substantial decision.

                  As an example, most Board members and Finance Committee members do not have an good understanding of insurance matters. 

                  In almost all cases, recommendations are made following limited information from one chosen insurance broker, when in fact that recommendation can be readily examined and reviewed by a number of individuals in our community with successful backgrounds, who in all likelihood, far exceed that particular individual. 

                  They would know the right questions to ask, and understand the answers as well !

                  How is that accomplished?

                  In the spirit of "community", YOU ASK FOR IT !  

                  A responsible Board also has the ability to create a special committee to cover a single subject.  

                  This brings up this example personally experienced by Anthem Opinions Co-Owner, Allen Weintraub.

                  States Mr. Weintraub: 

                  "In another community that I lived, there were numerous water basins that were interconnected below ground and used to balance water level in this pond system. 

                  Needless to say, there were problems and the association had
                  to hire and pay for consultants to try to interpret what was happening. 

                  About a month later, I was playing golf in the community, and I learned that a member of my foursome just sold his well drilling business. 

                  I found out that his company was the vendor that put in this underground system.

                  No one bothered to ask him advise for the issues. 

                  He did the laying of pipe and totally understood the issues." 

                  The moral of the story?

                  Why not use your residents that have expertise ?

                  Use "President Reports"...

                  ... NOT as a restaurant solicitation...

                  ... but a solicitation for ASSISTANCE in VITAL areas that may be beyond the expertise of those on a specific committee?

                  In closing, let's not forget that a board cannot have all the information, all the time. 
                  The CEO of a company does not manage all departments, and relies on Vice Presidents (committees) to handle their particular areas.

                  SCA needs to operate by using all the resources available to them.

                  Let's look at electing Board Members in 2016 who share a belief...

                  We can achieve...a...

                  dsc01674.jpg (3456×2592)


                  image.jpg (500×251)

                  Send us your thoughts to:

                  Anthem Opinions Administration
                  1. From Nelson Opinions

                    You left out two people who need to be added to your list - Jim Mayfield and Tom Nissen.

                    If one looks at page 9 of the 19 page Unaudited Financial Statements dated December 31, 2014, there is a line item that reads, "Total Association Revenue over (Expenses). For the Association it shows a plus $2,005,534. These unaudited statements were approved by the board in February 2015.

                    When residents asked in March and April what the 2014 surplus was, the answer always was that the auditor would provide that number. The auditor, Kondler & Associates, provided their report on May 1, 2015 and the board approved that report at the May board meeting.

                    On page 2 of that report there is a line item titled, "Excess of Revenues over Expenses From Operations, and it reads $2,206,049.

                    Then, at the August board meeting Tom Nissen provided a presentation that Jim Mayfield concurred with, that said the 2014 surplus for the association was ZERO.

                    In spite of questions asking how that zero number was determined, no response was ever received.

                    From my perspective, the board owes the residents over $2M.

                  Sun City Anthem Director
                  Asks Residents for Patience & Understanding

                  Carl Weinstein
                  Board Director
                  Sun City Anthem

                  I have been reading with some dismay all of the negative resident comments concerning Anthem going to a self-management mode. 

                  The comments have included some harsh words about Board members.

                  Our HOA government is much the way the U.S. Government works.

                  The public elects the representatives, and like it or not, must abide by the decisions of the people they elect. 

                  Changes can be made only through the Ballot Box at election time.

                  The SCA naysayers have yet to field any winning candidates to our Board. 

                  The road to success in that regard is to select residents who meet some important qualifications which are:

                  1. Living in Anthem long enough to have some knowledge of our history.

                  2.  Being able to state their case in a logical, professional, and congenial manner.

                  3. Accepting majority decisions, some of which you have strong disagreement.

                  4. Maintaining confidentiality required in certain legal issues.

                  So my challenge to the residents is to find THREE residents who are willing to serve and who at a minimum, meet the 4 standards listed above.

                  Now regarding transition

                  For those of you who think this is unnecessary and who think things are "fine" here, there have been legitimate issues that make changing necessary. 

                  For legal reasons in protecting SCA from adverse legal actionsthe Board must remain silent.

                  Now I ask for your trust when I say that our forthcoming General Manager is an exceptionally fine executive, based on my extensive experience as an HR Director. 
                  I can also assure you that the salary we will pay is competitive and not overstated for this person in this position. 

                  This person will NOT have a contract.

                  It is a simple offer letter of employment that either party can terminate without penalty.



                  1. From Mary Lee Opinions

                    The grapevine from a number of my data base participants is that Carl does talk out of BOTH sides of his mouth. He has forgotten that many "naysayers" helped him get elected as a Board of Directors and expectations are high.

                    There is NO choice at this point except to welcome the new General Manager, but there IS strong concern about her lack of experience, namely 900 vs 7,144 HOA residents.

                    Another concern is the various unknown additional expenses (employee salaries and insurance benefits for additional help).

                    It goes without saying she was offered an exceptionally generous salary and benefit package, for her background with small HOA's.

                    Time will tell.

                    No one would like to be more optimistic than I would, but history has proven differently.

                    The one thing Carl is right about us that we need GOOD board candidates, but with NO affiliation to the Existing board or past board of directors, with few exceptions.

                    Residents need Four to have majority vote and change the direction of Sun City Anthem.

                    Promises are made easily during campaigns but residents input and involvement in major issues have been ignored.

                    A change is needed immediately and is long overdue, in my opinion.

                    Residents that contact me aren't negative, they are genuinely concerned and are encouraged to contact the "source" (all board of directors or committee chairpersons).

                    Sadly, for the most part, it's not working (according to residents) and responses to specifics are few and far between.
                    Will this change with self management?

                    Again, time will tell.

                  2. From Board Director Carl Opinions

                    I think I need to explain further my intent when I outlined some of the qualifications a resident ought to have to run for the Board.

                    As you know there have been complaints every year that some residents run on a "ticket" even though it may not be advertised as such.

                    Usually the "ticket" wins.

                    What I am saying is that the modest group of residents who would like change or something better, ought to stand together and provide a "ticket" .

                    You have your chance this coming February 2016 as there will be three vacant Board positions.

                    What I am saying is that your "ticket" should meet some of the standard qualifications I outlined in my last message.

                    The candidates you put forward can disagree with the current situation.

                    I am certain that there must be some moderate residents who disagree with the current situation who can run.

                    It's time you got into the "heat of the kitchen!"
                    1. From Hollis Opinions

                      I’m sorry… but as I first heard of the idea that the board had proposed a self-management plan, all I could think of was “incompetency”, possible “corruption”, and complete “disaster”, given the history of our BODs! This is a perfect example, and I fear that this is just the “tip” of controversy.

                      I hardly even heard of the reason for self-management being to “save” money. And this salary alone is almost more than the salaries of BOTH my wife & myself when we had professional positions, with employees reporting to us……

                      When will we learn…..?


                  Answers to Surplus Funds and Cash Flow Questions
                  By Jim Mayfield,  Sun City Anthem Board Member

                  In 1973, I completed my Masters of Accountancy Degree and passed the CPA exam.  The governing rules of the accounting profession (Generally Accepted Accounting Principals—“GAAP”) were much simpler and set by CPA practitioners through their professional governing and standards body, the American Institute of CPAs.

                  In the over four decades since 1973, the US Congress and state legislatures, Federal and state regulatory bodies, and the legal system have stripped away the self-governance of accounting professionals.  Government has substituted a complex set of Federal and state laws and regulatory agencies that now set generally accepted accounting principals. 

                  Three adverse consequences of the change of control over accounting principals are that
                  1. CPAs, CFOs and regulators now speak in a language that is difficult to understand,
                  2.  GAAP frequently contain conflicts and inconsistencies, and
                  3. Users of financial information are often confused by accounting reports and the explanation of these reports by accountants, who can’t even agree on or define accounting terms.

                  These problems are even evident in what should be simple accounting and financial reporting environments, such as common interest communities—HOAs.

                  My purpose in writing this article is to attempt to strip away the complex accounting language in order to answer three simple questions:

                     1)    Does SCA currently have surplus funds (defined in NRS 116) that should be returned to the SCA homeowners or credited to their owner accounts?

                    2)    Do the annual homeowner assessments for 2016 need to be increased to cover the cost of transition to self-management?

                    3)    Is SCA at risk of running out of cash in 2016?

                  For those of you who just want the answers to these questions and don’t care about the details, the answers to all three questions is “no”.  For those of you who want to better understand the answers, I hope you find the explanations straightforward.

                  Does SCA currently have surplus funds that should be returned to SCA homeowners or credited to their owner accounts?

                  Commercial corporate financial and accounting rules allow a corporation to retain “profits” (revenues in excess of expenses) in a fiscal year as retained earnings.  No requirement is placed upon a commercial corporation to return retained earnings to stockholders.  However, NRS 116 prevents HOAs from accumulating revenues in excess of expenses (“carry forward funds”), except to the extent that it shows that carry forward funds are necessary to provide for future specific common expenses (term used in NRS 116.3114). (In my view, common expenses don’t include future undefined contingencies or provisions for working capital.)

                  Calculation of whether or not a HOA has surplus funds begins with a determination of the amount of cumulative carry forward funds from all prior fiscal years as of the end of each fiscal year.  Carry forward funds represent possible surplus funds that must be returned to or credited to the homeowners, unless the HOA can show estimates of future specific common expenses that will use the carry forward funds and reduce future assessments.  Calculations on the attached spreadsheet present the amount of carry forward funds as of December 31, 2014 and estimates for carry forward and surplus funds as of December 31, 2015 and 2016.

                  Carry forward funds as of the end of 2014 were $827,701, based upon financial information in the 2014 SCA audited financial statements.  Future common expenses for correcting deferred maintenance and transition to self-management are estimated to be approximately $1.15 million, which is greater than the $827,701 of the 2014 carry forward funds.  Therefore, surplus funds did not exist as of the end of of 2014.

                  The estimate for surplus funds as of the end of 2015 is approximately $91,000.  (The calculation of this amount is based upon unaudited financial reports and other current estimates.)  Since this amount is less than 10% of the estimate for future common expenses for correcting deferred maintenance and transition to self-management, surplus funds aren’t estimated to exist as of the end of 2015.  An exact determination of surplus funds can only be prepared after receipt of the SCA 2015 audited financial statements in 2016.

                  Do the annual homeowners assessments for 2016 need to be increased to provide for the cost of transition to self-management?

                  The estimated cost of transition to self-management of $727,200 can be funded from carry forward funds accumulated through 2015.  Therefore, an increase in the annual homeowners assessment for 2016 is not necessary.

                  Is SCA at risk of running out of cash in 2016?

                  The estimate for surplus funds as December 31, 2016 is approximately $491,000.  A precise determination of the amount of surplus funds as of the end of 2016 is not possible at this time due to uncertainties related to actual cost of operations in 2016, cost that will be incurred in 2016 for transition to self-management, and currently unknown future common expenses. The only reason an estimate was calculated was to analyze whether or not SCA could have a cash flow problem in 2016.  Using the attached estimate, a basis does not exists to support a conclusion that SCA will run out of cash in 2016.  However, if transition costs increase by more than $491,000 over the current estimates of $727,000, cash flow deficits could exist in the fourth quarter of 2016 and will have to be managed by using cash conservation techniques.


                  Author’s Notes.

                  Note 1.  The accounting interpretations and estimates used in this article are strictly the views and estimates of the author.  They do not represent an opinion or assessment of the Board of Directors.

                  Note 2.  The budgeting process at SCA should include accounting for both carry forward funds from prior years as well as revenues earned in the year being budgeted.  This practice has not been followed in prior years and must be incorporated into the budget process in future years.

                  For the detail oriented, the following is a numerical comparison to the 2 methods of evaluation.

                  The following is a complete UNEDITED transcript of the statement by the Sun City Anthem Finance Committee Vice Chairman.

                  It is detailed...and...lengthy...but...if you read it, you will be SHOCKED at what is written by this man.

                  ...and further demonstrates the many obstacles faced by this committee to properly perform their duties.

                  You will see...discord amongst the Finance Committee, the Management Company, and the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors...and the concerning lack of cooperation this Committee has received from these parties.

                  We urge you to read this information carefully, and comprehend the need for the earliest opportunity.

                  Board of Directors’ Workshop
                  September 29, 2015
                  Presentation of 2016 Budget Statement from 
                   Finance CommitteeVice Chairman

                  I am Tom RevellVice Chairman of the Finance Committee (“FC”), and on behalf of the entire FC, I would like these comments to be included in full in the official minutes of this meeting.

                  I would also like the minutes to reflect that a quorum of both the Board of Directors and the FC are in attendance today.

                  The FC has been preparing for this meeting with the understanding that this is a Board of Directors Workshop. 

                  The SCA 2016 Budget Schedule specifically calls this a “BOD Workshop – presentation of the 2016 Budget by the Finance Committee.” 

                   There is even an asterisk footnoting “BOD Workshops – to be duly noticed.” 

                  Furthermore the calendar posted on the SCA website states that the group name for this meeting is “Board of Directors TIER 1” and the event type as a “Board of Directors Meeting.” 

                  One should further note that this group name and event type is identical to that used to describe the normal Board meeting held last Thursday, September 24.

                  The FC members of the FC involved in this budget process have over 150 years of business experience. We have volunteered our services to bring our business and financial experience together to provide the Board of Directors (“Board”) with the best advice we can so that it may make an informed budget decisions as to this budget. We realize that we are only advisors; only the Board has the authority under Nevada law and SCA policies to make decisions affecting the residents of Sun City Anthem.

                  The 2016 budget process officially began in early 2015 when the FCSR prepared the 2016 Budget Master Schedule; this schedule was approved by the FC and the Board in February of this year. 

                  Following Board approval, FSR held a budget-planning meeting to review the budget process with Department Managers. 

                   In reality, the 2016 budget process began last year with the efforts the Leonard Grodzinski, then chairman, and the other members of the FC. They strove to significantly improve the process as well as the content and format of the budget.   

                  Following Board approval, FSR held a budget-planning meeting to review the budget process with Department Managers.

                  The guidelines sought by the FC were designed to improve the ability of the Board and FSR to manage the related costs by quickly identifying unusual swings in pertinent revenue and expense items so that appropriate corrective action could be taken.  

                  In March, the FC began to develop the budget guidelines which were approved by the FC on May 13 following a combined meeting with the Board to discuss the proposed guidelines with SCA residents. 

                  The Board subsequently approved these guidelines on May 28, 2015.

                  It is very important to keep in mind that it is the responsibility of FSR, as Managing Agent, to prepare the budget

                  FSR is required to comply with the budget guidelines as approved by the Board.

                  FSR complied with many of these guidelines, but I want to focus on three specific guidelines:

                  1Section 2 specifically states “Budget line items will be supported by expected quantities to be consumed or services to be rendered at their forecasted 2016 prices.” Specific items such as utility consumption in kWh, gallons of water and Therms of natural gas as well as fitness classes planned and expected attendance were cited as examples. Utilities are specifically covered as the cost of utilities is the second highest expense in the budget (almost $ 1 million).

                  2Section 5.a.ii., dealing with homeowner assessments relating to the Villas, states that FSR is to determine “The minimum assessment required to pay cash expenses, the reserve contribution and any required change in working capital.

                  3Section 6.a., dealing with FSR expenses provides that with respect to FSR On-site Personnel Expenses, FSR “… will comply with the April 1st, 2014 Agreement. FSR must identify in total any budgeted merit pay increases and/or any payroll cost-of-living-adjustments

                  To validate their forecasted payroll, FSR will provide a supporting organization chart and staffing schedule, listing expected weekly paid man-hours by staff position to determine FSR’s full-time-equivalents (FTE).” 

                  FSR’s on-site payroll expense is the largest single expense item in the budget (over $3 million).

                  The Board Policy Manual section 7.12.1 states "the mission of the finance committee is to...(b) oversee MAs (Managing Agent's) preparation of the budget for the following year and recommend such budget to the Board...."

                  The Board Policy MA Manual ("BPM") section 4.2.A. states “All Directors will support the decisions of the Board after they have been approved at Board Meetings.”

                  Paragraph B then states “The Board will not substitute the expertise of individual Directors for the judgment of the Board.” 

                  Finally, Policy Manual BPM section 4.4 B. states “Directors may not attempt to exercise individual authority over the Association….”.

                  The above discussion may seem a long-winded introduction, but it is important information to keep in mind to understand the hurdles the FC and Forrest Quinn in particular, faced during this year process.

                  Forrest Quinnthe FC Chairman, has spent hundreds of hours of his time, time that may have been better spent taking a four-month European vacation. 

                  The other members of the FC also put in many hours in support of this budget process spearheaded by Forrest.

                  Due to the transition to self-management, the 2016 budget is one of the most important ever.  Unfortunately,as of September 22, 2015, just one week ago,  the FC still had not received a budget that addressed many of the latest specific comments and questions raised by the FC

                  Further, the FC is unable to recommend this budget to the Board for approval for three reasons.

                  1FSR did not comply with the Budget Guidelines approved by the Board.  FSR's deviation represented approximately 50% of the annual assessment spending.

                  2The FC was not allowed to oversee the budget process per BPM 7.12.1.

                  3The FC's independence was compromised, thereby making it unable to provide an untainted budget recommendation.

                  We will, however, present the 2016 budget to the SCA community and the Board.

                  You might ask why we cannot "recommend" this budget as this is the mission of the FC in the Board Policy Manual.

                  The BPM Section 7.12.1. states “The mission of the Finance Committee is to … (b) oversee MAs preparation of the budget for the following year and recommend such budget to the Board….”.

                  There are two important sections to this policy:

                  1Oversee” means: to direct (work or workers); supervise; manage.
                  2. To render a recommendation to the board, the FC must be independent of the board’s control and influence.

                  There are two major reasons the FC cannot comply with its mission

                  First, FSR did not comply with the Budget Guidelines approved by the Board

                  Second, a member of the Board, in contravention of BPM sections 4.2 and 4.4, without bringing this up to the board, effectively to permit FSR to not comply with those guidelines that were discussed and approved by the full board, to nullify BPM 7.12.1

                  As a result, the FC was not allowed to oversee the budget properly as the FC’s oversight of the budget process was effectively put under the control of the Board. I want to expand on each of these points.

                  But first, the FC wants the community to know that the financial analysts with FSR involved in this budget process, Rick Castaneda and Kristi Ernst, should be recognized for their efforts to comply with many of the comments, questions, and concerns raised by FC members while continuing to handle their non-budget-related responsibilities.

                  Based on past budgeting experience and the difficulties encountered in explaining budget variances throughout the following year, the FC felt that it was important to track quantities in the 2016 budget.  This was discussed in public meetings and approved by the Board.  

                  Because it is a large budget item, utility consumption was specifically identified for this requirement.

                  The difficulty with FSR rests primarily, if not solely, on Matt Resler's shoulders.

                  Matt Resler became FSR’s on–site general manager in early April 2015. 

                  Soon thereafter, he became aware of the FC’s proposal to have quantities and updated pricing provided to support selected revenue and expense items in the budget and expressed concerns as to the amount of effort required to obtain such information.

                  Evidently in July, approximately two months after the FC approved the budget guidelines, and Mr. Resler wsa om attendance at the FC meeting approving the guidelines, and six weeks after the Board approved those same guidelines, evidently Mr. Resler approached a Board member and complained and discussed the effort and problems involved with complying with the amount of work required to comply with the “supporting quantities” portion of the guidelines

                  Presumably, he argued that there was insufficient time and the information was not really needed to support the budget, especially since it had never been required before. The Board member, without consulting the full Board or the FC, permitted FSR to deviate from the Board approved budget guidelinesSuch action by the Board member ignored the Board Policy Manual by permitting this deviation from the Board approved guidelines. 

                  The FC thought this information was so important that it volunteered to assemble this data, if FSR would provide the bills

                  This offer was ignored.

                  Communications between the FC and FSR suffered as a result of FSR going behind our backs and the Board member allowing this to occur

                  Communications worsened to the point where Mr. Resler insisted that budget communications only come from a Board member, principally Mr. Nissen, to him and he would further pass FC comments, questions, concerns on to the appropriate person. Similarly, responses from FSR staff were to go to him and, in turn, Mr. Nissen would pass it along to the FC.

                  This vetting, approving, and monitoring of FC comments, requests, corrections, etc., regarding the 2016 budget by a Board Member violated the FC's independence

                  I found this to totally absurd, as the FC’s mission is to oversee FSR’s preparation of the budget

                  Further, at the time much of Mr. Nissen’s time and efforts on behalf of the SCA community were being consumed by self-management transition issues.

                  In an email dated September 18, at 3:57 PM to Tom Nissen, Board Treasurer, with copies to Bella Meese and Rex WeddleMr. Resler stated in part that “We (FSR) are waiting on the following items for the 2016 budget: … Villas reserve transfers. Due from FC/Board.” 

                  Mr. Resler again overlooked the budget guidelines

                  Mr. Nissen forwarded the email to me asking if I wanted to send that information, as well as other information, to him so he could then send it on to Mr. Resler. 

                  I will comment on this in a moment, but after talking to Forrest Quinn and reviewing the guidelines, I responded to Mr. Nissen saying that budget guidelines stated that FSR was responsible for that information.

                  Aware that the FC came very close to resigning in mass on September 17 over this untenable situation, Mr. Nissen arranged a meeting for September 21, just eight days ago, with two members of the FC, Mr. Resler and FSR’s financial analysts, and himself. 

                  The purpose was to try to ease the tension between Mr. Resler and the FC and to determine what needed to be done, and by who, in order for a budget to be completed by FSR.  

                  I brought up to Mr. Resler the concerns in my comments and he provided some insight from his perspective. Believe it or not, my comments have been toned down as a result. Tensions somewhat eased, we covered the remaining issues. Mr. Resler informed us that FSR has continued to build the database necessary to meet the quantitative support requirement, but it has been time consuming and is not complete. 

                  It should also be noted that FSR provides Mr. Nissen detailed monthly payroll data that is carefully reviewed by him

                  FSR offered to provide us with most, if not all, of the on-site payroll information requested in the guidelines (none of which includes any confidential information), but I stated that it was too late for us to review it as part of this budget process. 

                  The last open item that was covered was the Villas homeowners’ assessments; FSR was to make those computationsnot the FC or Board.

                  FSR provided the FC printed copies of the revised budget (version dated 9/23/15) early on Thursday, September 24.  That afternoon, FSR emailed an update, increasing community improvement / reserve project spending by $65,000.  

                  This update was not sent to the FC; it was sent to Mr. Nissen. 

                  On Saturday, September 26, Mr. Nissen forwarded the update to the FC stating "I realize I received it on Thursday, but I have been unable to get my emails until this morning so it is obviously late. This is one of the problems resulting from FSR's unwillingness to work directly with the FC."

                  Mr. Resler promptly responded to Mr. Nissen with a copy to Rick Castaneda, Shannon Alvarez, Bella Meese, and me. 

                   Resler stated: "Just to be clear.  We are not unwilling to work with the Finance Committee, we are following the board's direction on communication and if at any time that needs to be changed the board just needs to give us that direction. We have discussed this on several occasions and should the Board decide for us to have direct contact with the Finance Committee, the Board President just needs to give us that direction."

                  Personally I do not think the full Board to make any such decision. 

                  Certainly, nothing was included in any minutes of a Board Meeting.  

                  I think one specific Board member allowed Mr. Resler and his FSR team to not have direct communication with the FC

                  If I am mistaken, I apologize and merely ask for copy of the pertinent Board minutes.  

                  It is accurate to say that only the Board President is authorized to give instructions to FSR (BPM 4.5.1); however, no Board policy prevents Mr. Resler from providing information directly to the FC.  

                  His unwillingness to do so just emphasizes the hurdles the FC faced in evaluating FRS's proposed budget even after our meeting eight days ago.

                  The fact that any response provided by me would have be sent to Mr. Nissen and then sent on to Mr. Resler is absurd. 

                  It's rather hard to  "oversee MA's (Managing Agent's) preparation of the budgetwhen it reaches the point that communication between the FC and the FSR financial analysts had to be passed through two intermediaries: Mr.  Nissen and Mr. Resler.

                  Mr. Resler has been a major impediment to this entire budget process, and as his bitter feelings increased, he insisted that all correspondence from Forrest be directed to him, rather than just copying him, and later that only a Board member send him as requests for information or changes to the proposed budget and all financial related correspondence from FSR personnel be sent to Mr. Nissen, who would then have to pass it on the FC.   Mr. Nissen was actively involved in self-management transition issues so the budget process suffered.

                  I want to make one final point. The FC never received the payroll 
                  information called for in the guidelines. 

                  While Forrest may comment later, I want to state that I find it totally unreasonable for FSR to propose a payroll budget for 2016 that is 6.7% higher than the 2015 payroll budget and 8.6% higher than the July 27 updated forecast for 2015 payroll.

                  Thank you.


                  Governance of our Community

                  This is the first article under our newest Information Page entitled 

                  "Nevada Know-How"

                  Today we'll discuss the basics of governance in our Sun City Anthem community.

                  Sun City Anthem is a semi-autonomous community within the City of Henderson.

                  Officially we are a "Common-Interest Community".

                  With over 7,000 homes and well over 10,000 residents, we are one of the largest entities in the State, larger than some entire counties in Nevada.

                  We enjoy an “upscale” community lifestyle with relatively expensive homes and what might be called "upper middle class" residents.

                  The “government” of our community is a corporation called a Homeowners Association (HOA).

                  Our HOA owns millions of dollars of real property and personal property and has considerable impact and control over our daily lives.

                  The “constitution” of our HOA includes the "governing documents", which consists of our Declaration”, or CC&Rs, and Bylaws.

                  The “laws” of our community are various rules and regulations.

                  Our government is controlled by a board of directors (the executive board or “board”)....7 individuals...3 elected in one year, and in an alternate year...all unpaid volunteers, for a 2 year period.

                  Though each period of elective service is 2 years, there are NO MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TERMS an individual may serve.

                  We the people, the homeowner/members, elect them and empower them to operate Sun City Anthem on our behalf.

                  The only requirement to run for a board position is to be "a member in good standing".  

                  There is NO VETTINGnor is there any VERIFICATION OF ANY MATERIAL an individual may utilize to run for office.

                  Once elected, the directors select officers (president, vice president, secretary and treasurer) from among themselves.

                  No one individual no matter what the vote count, can claim any particular office.  Each is elected separately.

                  The board is supported and assisted by various committees focused on various aspects of our day-to-day operations.

                  All members of these committees are appointed by the board and are also unpaid volunteers.

                  The committees are as follows:

                  1. Architectural Review Committee which covers the overall appearance standards of our community.

                  2. Communications Committee which administers the Spirit Magazine and Channel 99 TV.

                  3. Community Lifestyle Committee which watches over our club and activity environment.

                  4. Covenants Committee which handles homeowner violations of our governing documents, rules and regulations.

                  5. Election Committee which handles all election matters.

                  6. Finance Committee which handles the financial matters of our community.

                  7. Health and Fitness Committee which handles the health, fitness, recreation and wellness aspects of our community.

                  8. Property and Grounds Committee which handles the various physical aspects of our community including structures, parking lots, open areas, etc.

                  To pay for the costs and expenses incurred by our community the board imposes “taxes” that are called assessments (or dues).

                  This amounts to a substantial amount of money each year – about $8 million.

                  We pay these in installments every 3 months.

                  The assessments are mandatory and the board has the power to foreclose and auction off homes if the owner fails to pay.

                  The assessments are in addition to the real estate taxes we pay to Clark County and to the City of Henderson.

                  It is in the best interest of all homeowner/members to be aware of how wisely the board administers these millions of dollars to the benefit of all of us; never wasting these precious resources on frivolous expenditures.

                  To "police" this goal, all members should be aware of the board's and committees' holding  monthly meetings open to all homeowner/members.

                  All homeowner/members have the right to attend and to speak at the meetings....with one exception...

                  That exception is the Covenants Committee which has closed meetings to protect the privacy of any homeowner who might be subject to disciplinary actions due to a community violation.

                  We hope this newest addition to Anthem Opinions will make all members aware of the rights and privileges the law guarantees to each of us.

                  Got a question, or have any idea as to a specific homeowner topic you'd like  explained?

                  Let us know.

                  Send us an email at:


                  Tim Stebbins

                  1. From Robert in Opinions

                    Thank You! - You've successfully summarized over half of the Public Offering Statement into a clear and concise, easy-to-understand explanation.

                  2. From Kathryn Opinions (Tim Stebbins)

                    Does a Homeowner Association Board have the authority to change to Self management without the community voting on that major change in management?
                  3. From Tim Stebbins of Anthem Schwink

                    Yes the board can decide how our association is to be managed.

                    Sun City Anthem, along with most, but not all, other HOAs in Nevada contracted with a professional management company to handle the day-to-day operations of the facilities or our community.

                    In our case this is a company called First Service Residential or FSR.

                    The services provided by this contractor have not been satisfactory. They just do not seem to have the capabilities to manage the affairs of a HOA as large as Sun City Anthem.

                    The board has looked into the alternative of self management.

                    It was learned that most to all large HOAs in the country are self managed. It was also learned that FSR was one of the biggest and best management companies but generally for much smaller communities.

                    Thus there are really no management companies suitable to manage Sun City Anthem.

                    Locally other self managed communities in the Las Vegas Valley include Sun City Summerlin (a community even larger than Sun City Anthem) and our neighbor Sun MacDonald Ranch.

                    I will add that "self management" does not mean the board will manage the association.

                    The volunteer board members are not capable of doing that.

                    The first step is to hire a competent General Manager and then to build a proper management structure with a combination of employees and contractors.

                    As we move ahead with the conversion to self management we hope to provide more information.

No comments:

Post a Comment