Due to the amount of information that came out of this meeting, it will be divided up into 2 parts which will include Part 1: Board Agenda items, Part 2: Administration and Board of Directors.
Board Meeting Notes
Board of Directors Meeting was held at 6:30 pm on January 22, 2024.
Approximately 30 homeowners were in attendance.
Board of Directors in attendance:
- Gary Whelchel,
- Heather Parker,
- Becky Cholewka,
- Joe Papietro,
- Josh Pleasant,
- Stephen Whitworth
Board of Directors not in attendance:
- Lisa Rich
Also in attendance:
- Curtis Ekmark (Power Ranch Community Association attorney)
- Nick Ferre (CCMC, Operations Manager)
- Jenna (CCMC, Senior VP, Area Manager)
- Irene Sousa (CCMC)
- Jennifer Patridge (CCMC)
Open Session
Legal Issues & A Dismissive Board President
Homeowner Ken had been called upon during the meeting because he had signed in through the sign-up sheet upon entering. However, he stated that he did not have anything to say. Meanwhile, the Board President, Gary, began to conclude the open session and expressed gratitude to everyone in attendance. At this point, Ken interrupted and requested that the Board allow homeowner, Anh Jung to speak since she had also signed in.
Reluctantly (and with a hint of annoyance), Gary glanced back at the rest of the Board and verified with CCMC that Anh had indeed signed in. With no other option, he reluctantly agreed to grant Anh permission to speak for 3 minutes.
Anh approached the Board with a letter she had composed which was addressed to the Board of Directors. She added the following:
“I do not expect an immediate resolution at this meeting tonight. However, I believe there are significant concerns regarding legal matters related to the Declarations and Bylaws that could potentially impact the HOA. These concerns may result in legal expenses that all Association members would have to incur. Therefore, I am presenting this letter summarizing some of my recent correspondence with Jennifer Partridge, and I would like a follow-up from the Board (since no one from CCMC has provided me with answers).”
Gary quickly glanced over the document given to him and inquired, “Does this document pertain to your application for the Board election?” Anh promptly replied with a straightforward “yes.”
In what seemed like an effort to change the subject, Gary remarked, “Well, considering you have retained legal counsel…” Anh interrupted and repeatedly emphasized that she had not hired a lawyer, as she was well aware of the expenses the Association would incur to obtain an answer from the Association’s attorney. She stated that she simply wanted an answer without legal intervention, which CCMC had failed to provide after several days of unanswered emails, and a failed attempt for an in-person meeting with Jennifer due to her refusal to meet with Anh.
Remaining true to his usual misogynistic manner towards Anh, Gary casually remarked, “Okay, who else?” Anh was left without any additional guidance from him.
(It was later observed that Gary sneakily passed the letter to the attorney instead of sharing the information with the rest of the Board as intended and requested by the homeowner).
Leash Law, Broken Glass, and Grafitti
Homeowner Adrian stood up and requested to speak. The Board agreed and said he had 3 minutes. Adrian started by mentioning that he and his wife have lived in Power Ranch for 9 years and have observed a consistent deterioration in the quality of life due to CCMC’s negligence in enforcing the leash law. Adrian desires an enclosed area for homeowners to walk their pets without jeopardizing other animals, as his dog has been attacked multiple times. He also requested the installation of dog signs in parks, because according to him, they are currently nonexistent.
Adrian brought up various matters when speaking to the Board, among them:
1. He requested that CCMC send a reminder to all homeowners about the importance of cleaning up after their pets and properly disposing of the green bags.
2. He urged the Board to take action regarding the broken glass bottles scattered throughout the community.
3. Adrian mentioned the occurrence of graffiti on walls, even though he hasn’t seen any recently, he emphasized that it has been noticed before.
Gary thanked Adrian and continued to call the meeting to order.
Meeting Called to Order: 6:38 PM
MEETING AGENDA provided below
Note to Management: Let’s leave off the passive aggressive quotes. Thanks.
Note to Board: Let’s not approve agendas containing quotes like this. The decisions made by this Board have clearly not prioritized the happiness of others. This is not leadership, but rather complacency and lack of management of the managers. Thanks.
The Board motioned to approve the Consent Agenda, and it was unanimously approved by the Board.
Committee Updates
Budget & Finance Committee - update provided by Joe Papietro
Joe provided an update stating that 2 CD’s coming due in February and the other in March.
Interest income for 2023 we made $204,691 and that money has been moved to reserves.
Design Review Committee - update provided by Stephen Whitworth
Stephen stated that the committee meeting took place on January 2nd and acknowledged the presence of several homeowners at the meeting. He mentioned that they addressed various matters beyond just paint colors, focusing on elements that would enhance the community’s aesthetics. Stephen added that the committee intends to continue to address these modifications. He mentioned that the next DRC Meeting is scheduled for February 6th.
Facilities Committee - update provided by Jennifer Partridge in lieu of Lisa Rich
Jennifer stated that they have an updated timeline of 8 additional play structures; 1 of the play structures “they had to make tweaks to.”
The Committee had chosen the “accessory family” such as “trash cans, tables, benches” so that “moving forward all the replacements would come from the same manufacturer and look-a-like.”
“We are working on quotes for the neighborhoods that have their furniture up at the same time as their play structure so that we can do it at one stop and get it all done at once.”
Knolls Committee - update provided by Josh Pleasant
Josh began by saying that since the last time we met, the residents of the Knolls have requested that the Board reconsider reallocating some of the funds that would go into reserves be used towards heating the pools for the remainder of Winter. He pointed out that it is on the Agenda tonight.
Landscaping Committee - update provided by Becky Cholewka
“We had a meeting with Triple A to go over more of our strategic planning and how we are meshing along with our expectations and what we would like to see from their team.” She proudly announced that she brought their team bagels one day to meet some of their workers (Nice gesture but hope that wasn’t courtesy of the Association and probably more effective had she invited homeowners to meet the team to ask questions.). She concluded by saying the next meeting has not been scheduled but will probably be scheduled in March.
Village Committee - update provided by Heather Parker
No parking, towing signs are up and according to Heather, she said that the homeowners are reporting that there has been a “downturn” in parking issues.
Board Business
AGENDA ITEM: Monument Contract - requested by Jennifer Partridge
Jennifer started by summarizing that at the meeting on September 22, 2023, and during the budgeting process, the Board and Budget and Finance Committee agreed to allocate $150,000 from capital improvements account and $150,000 from reserves account for the Facilities Committee monument project, totaling $300,000.
A total of $60,626 has been used for planning expenses, which was paid to the landscape architect, RVI. Jennifer described them as “the dream” and explained that they were the ones who suggested the play structures. She further elaborated on the locations of the “8 large” monument signs, which are Pecos and Ranch House, Queen Creek and Ranch House, Haven Crest and Power, and Power and Germann.
Jennifer is requesting approval for changes in the “language of the contract” that was provided in the “board pack”, along with a change in the “scope of work.”
Gary made a motion for approval, and the Board unanimously agreed.
Note: Have homeowners been provided the contract, details of the scope of work, timeframe for completion, or photos?
Discussion of the Board
- S. Whitworth inquired about language regarding liquidated damages and wanted to insure there is liquidated damages included in the event the contractor breaches – Jennifer Patridge said yes there is liquidated damages clause.
- J. Papietro inquired about the timeline of play structures – Jennifer Patridge, “I know we are anticipating the first order to be delivered on the 22nd of February, Annual Meeting Day…then the plan is to move quickly so before they get…I want them to get…before they get delivered to the contractor, that contractor will send his team in to start the demo and right after demo they are going to put the structure back up. So they are telling us within a week we should…they should come, we should come back up…starting in the Oaks, it’s the first one.”
The Board opened up the floor for Homeowners Questions and Comments:
Questions from Homeowner Ken:
- What are included in the 8 monuments? Does that include the windmill or just the “Power Ranch” sign?
- Can you please clarify what is included in the $300,000 “monument project?” So what I thought I heard was that the $300,000 was just for the monument?
(Is anyone else keeping up with this? Because we’re really struggling at this point to understand simple questions like, where is the money going and how is it being spent? They gave RVI $60,626 as stated above, but now all of a sudden Atwell is also involved? And we paid them $38,000 to manage the construction project because according to Jennifer RVI could not handle the construction because it would be ‘a very large undertaking’ for them. We later found that Atwell and RVI are essentially the same company. It would make our lives so much easier if CCMC could present homeowners with a detailed scope of work and an itemized list of everything included in the contract. This way, CCMC would have less questions. Seems really inefficient how they choose to handle objections from homeowners.)
More information on Atwell. Appears that Atwell and RVI are interwined.
Ken: “And the rest is…?”
Jennifer: “They have not discussed what they will do with it because alot of what is up in the reserves is part of what we are talking about so that if it goes above and beyond that is where those funds will cover the difference.”
Ken paused to gather his thoughts as he appeared to be even more confused than before he began asking questions, he continued by asking:
Ken: “So what I am gathering is RVI does a lot of things around Power Ranch and there is $300,000 allotted to them to do all these things…”
Jennifer: “It’s allotted to the Facilities Committee to the renovation projects according to the Reserves study. There are also new items that this Board has been working on to bring you guys into the next 20 years.”
Ken: “Like the playground?”
Jennifer: “Yes, but your playgrounds are reserved; however, we have been told by our Reserve Study Specialist that the items from the Reserve Study is coming in at 20-30% more than what we had reserved prior to Covid. Our last reserve study was done in 2019. So that is where a lot of those funds will go, to cover the differences. However there is a whole lot of strategy that is being done because we don’t want to…there is a timeline we’re working on…they don’t want to do 3 different play structures and funds to cover these 3 play structures and not be able to cover the rest. So there is a timeline that goes out to 2029 that we’re working on so we make sure it’s not something that the community has to worry about so that there is no special assessment. Does that answer your questions?”
(Inflation is real but management’s failure to shop out contracts and get bids is also real and no longer should be an excuse for the increases we are experiencing as homeowners. #FiscalResponsibility)
Ken: “To avoid special assessments…yeah, although I don’t know if I am understanding if the $300,000 was additional to the reserves that have already been allocated per the reserve study?”
Jennifer: “It is additional, not reserves. It’s additional for the renovation project.”
Ken: “What is included in the renovation project? So it sounds like there is way more in the renovation project than monuments?”
Jennifer: “It’s playground, park furniture, it’s new things so they have even talked about putting up signs throughout…tying Power Ranch North and South side. For the monuments, it’s not the the windmills but it is all the monuments. This project is for the main monument but every other monument should be touched within the next 5-10 years that’s another part of the plan…so you know the North looks very different from the South…tying them together.”
We believe it is crucial to provide an exact quotation of the above conversation because, as evident, the responses during the meetings often result in contradictory answers and circular discussions. Jennifer mentioned that the project was in addition to the existing allocation from reserves, but also claimed that it encompassed all the monuments in the Community with the aim of unifying the North and South sides and playgrounds. However, she added that the $300,000 would cover the cost of all these signs over the next 5-10 years. In reading the above transcript, majority of homeowners were more confused leaving the meeting than they arrived. This inconsistency sheds light on their reluctance to have a documented record of these meetings.
Question from Homeowner Kraig:
“Is there a warranty clause in the contract?”
Curtis Ekmark responded by saying that he was working on the standard provision that he is now doing the contracts for is to prevent the pool situation from happening again.
Gary motioned to approve the contract (again), the Board seconded and approved.
AGENDA ITEM: Ranch House Pool Chlorinator Replacement - Requested by Irene Souza
Irene began by stating that according to the reserve study stated that the pool chlorinator was to be in 2022, but it has now reached its useful life. To repair $4,268. and to replace $7,451.
Becky C. motioned to replace the chlorinator system at $7,451. Heather P. seconded, and Board approved.
A few notes: chlorinator is 13 years old, the 5 pools need this especially in the Summer as it prevents the pool maintenance crew from having to manually place chlorine in the pools and they rely on it, per Jennifer.
Homeowners' Questions:
Homeowner 1: “How many companies do we get bids from for something like this? So we don’t even bother to see if we can get another bid to get better pricing from the current vendor?”
Jennifer: This is with the current vendor. When we are engaged with the current vendor and there’s no problem then yes, plus we have a procurement agreement that does not call for more than 1 bid if it is not more than $10,000.
Homeowner 2: “Why don’t we shop it around to see if we can get a better price?”
Jennifer: The procurement agreement that is place so we can keep repairs and maintenance of the community moving forward.
Homeowner 3: “Are we bound by our procurement agreement to not use any other vendor?”
Jennifer: No.
Homeowner 3: “Is there a need for the chlorinator versus manually? The way it was described it sounds like it is more of a convenience item for the pool vendor. It’s too pragmatic to do it manually, yes?”
Jennifer: The chlorinator ejects chlorine into the North and South pools based on what the computer tells it. Yes, it is too pragmatic to do it manually.
Gary motioned to approve the pool chlorinator replacement, Board seconded and approved.
AGENDA ITEM: The Knolls Pool Heating
Josh asked Jennifer to start and he could add to it.
Jennifer started by saying that in 2023 during the budgeting process for 2024 the Knolls Committee “met a couple of times and decided based where their assessment would be after the regular line items in the budget, heating the pool was not something they wanted to do.”
Notes: Knolls assessments went up the full 20% for 2024. *According to the Declarations assessments cannot increase more than 20% on annual basis.
Homeowners requested that the Committee reallocate funds to heat the pool for 3 months.
Josh added that a survey was sent out to homeowners asking if they would mind paying more to have the pool heated. The result from the survey: they do not want to heat the pools because they do not want to see another increase, per Josh.
They also had keycard access records pulled to see how many people were using the pool during the Winter timeframe and showed that not many used the pool during the Winter and the most use was beginning in March. The spa is still heated.
Josh motioned to open discussions for the request $20,000 from reserves to heat the Knolls pool for the remainder of the Winter.
Becky C. chimed in and said she is voting against the $20,000 for 6 weeks of heating the pool and would like to see that money put elsewhere.
Joe P. pointed out that 130 owners surveyed to not heat the pool; 38 owners said to heat the pool. He said he is not sure why we would heat the pool when majority said no to heating the pool.
The outcome of a survey relies on the question being asked. According to Josh and Knolls homeowners, the question was formulated by inquiring whether homeowners would be willing to pay extra fees for pool heating. Also, have they compared the key card assess data between the period when the pools were heated and the current situation when they are not?
Gary W. jumped in and mentioned that he was the Chairman of the Knolls Committee for 9 years and heating of the pool has been an issue every year. According to Gary, the cost of heating the pool is $20,000 per pool and that was the cost 3 years ago.
It’s great to know, Gary, but why haven’t we properly budgeted for homeowners to have a heated pool? Or why did you not request to have other cost-saving options such as solar or upgrading to an energy efficient pump? The entire time, we heard Gary emphasize that it would cost too much money to invest in a solar pool cover but 9 years should be more than enough time to accomplish this had he understood budgeting and how to move money into reserves and communicating with homeowners. However, as stated by the Knolls Committee, their expenses were in the red last year and they don’t have enough reserves to complete necessary projects highlighted in the Board’s Reserve Study for 2019. Would it be so far-fetched for anyone to question what has occurred in the past 9 years to create this current situation? We appreciated that the Board Member Josh P. advocated for homeowners and brought this issue to light and looked for solutions.
According to Josh P., during the previous Knolls Committee Meeting, 25 homeowners were present and voiced their request for heated pools. Josh sought the opinion of those in attendance by asking if they would be willing to accept a 20% increase in their dues for another year to maintain heated pools. The consensus was that they were in favor of this. Josh added that he could not act on this because of only 25 homeowners in attendance and that he would alienate the rest.
While it is admireable that Josh and the Committee took all homeowners into the consideration, the facts are that there were approximately 25 homeowners who cared about their community to attend the meeting to voice their concerns. The Committee could have provided the owners an opportunity to vote on the matter according to ARS 33.1812.
EnergySaver.gov website on how to heat pools more cost effectively.
We also learned that when a buyer purchases a home in the Knolls, they are required to pay an additional $500 towards capital contributions, which is separate from the master association’s capital contribution amount.
Homeowner Andrea shared her personal experience of living in the Knolls for the past 10 years. Key takeaways from Andrea’s comments were as follows: 1) The requests from “snowbirds” to heat the pool during winter are just as valid as those from full-time residents. These snowbirds actually pay a premium fee, despite not utilizing the pool as frequently as others. 2) Due to the pools not being heated, children who are not yet of age are compelled to enter the hot tubs as it’s the only warm area available.
Homeowner Sally inquired about the amount of interest that has been made from reserves from the Knolls’ CD’s. Josh P. responded by saying that the statement for the Knolls have not yet been released.
Homeowner Pam asked if perhaps the homeowners in the Knolls were falsely mislead to believe that the pools would be heated when they purchased in the Knolls.
Gary made the following statement: “I will add to this. I didn’t really want to get into this conversation as a resident and 9 years on that Committee, this is a topic that has been brought up every single year in the Knolls and on that Committee and the Committee does make that decision at their meeting and this decision that came to the Board through the Knolls Committee through the residents who live there who voted to not heat a pool…and they built their budget based on that and they brought their budget to us to approve and unless there is a circumstance that is way out there this Board is going to approve the work of the resident Committees and that resident Committee tells us that this money is going into the reserves so the question that we have to deal with tonight isn’t so much heating the pool, it’s weather we should change the reserve amount going in for the Knolls which Becky has already said it is not eceonomically feasbile idea from a financial point of view continuing in the community. If the time to do, and I’ve said this before, like I said the time to do this for the Knolls Committee is meeting in September , August, September, October when they are formalizing their budget for the coming year with items in it that needs to be done and that’s the time to sit down with that Committee to say listen we want a pool heated and then work with the Committee to make that happen or ask them to make it happen so that’s what brought to the Board for approval because we work through resident Committees, homeowners make these decisions, we’re sitting here tonight stuck with a very difficult decision because we are dealing with a decision that came out of the resident Committee where homeowners did not put enough input there and tell that Committee what they wanted or they made a decision based on what they felt the residents wanted. So that is where it begins every year so that is my speech.”
Homeowner Luc and Knolls Committee member, stood up outraged and responded to Gary’s statement by saying that “I sit on that Committee and way back in September / October I was one of those we need to heat it and I was voted out and now I get calls every day asking why we are not heated. In the Knolls we pay twice as much as everybody else and I am sitting wondering why I have to ask you to give us the money that we have already paid for this. 15 years I have been here, 15 years we have had the pool; so I am not asking, I am telling you, heat our pool! Enough is enough, this is our money that we are putting in there!”
Gary dismisses the homeowner’s comment by saying “Okay, do we have anything else from the Board on this? We have a motion on the Board and a second, to take $20,000 out of reserves to heat the pool through the rest of the Winter: those in favor say “I”‘
Josh P voted in favor.
Becky C, Joe P., Heather P. Steve W. vote against it.
Board votes against $20,000 to heat the pool this year.
Homeowner Luc was observed walking out of the meeting due to his high level of frustration.
Although Gary claims that homeowners have a right to speak up, it is evident from what has transpired that they are silenced, and their input goes unacknowledged or dismissed.
AGENDA ITEM - Insurance
Jennifer’s presentation of the insurance information was truly eye-opening in terms of the budget organization by this Board and management. It seems that they first establish a budget, input an arbitrary number for the entire year, seek approval from the Board, and only then proceed with obtaining proposals. Normally, companies would shop for insurance rates while creating the budget as a proactive way of mitigating increases, even if the policy renewal is several months away. The current approach adopted by this Board is simply ineffective and allows for management to not have a desire to help keep costs down, and they seem unwilling to consider alternative, more efficient methods.
Jennifer began by providing the Board with the 2024 approved budget for insurance and then stated that you guys have budgeted xx.xx amount and the insurance proposal came in less. The insurance renews February 1st and Jennifer wanted the Board to pre-approve the insurance quote although they had not obtain the pricing on coverage for pollution, which was a $10,000 gap.
Homeowner Mike spoke and asked what exactly is pollution insurance and what does it cover?
Nick F. / CCMC attempted to provide an explaining by prefacing that “a lot has happened over the past couple of years in the insurance industry and rates have increased” and coverage has shifted therefore he wants to provide a double protection for the Association and CCMC staff in case vendors or homeowners get injured if there is a policy lapse with the vendor’s policy.
Homeowner Sally asked if we stay on top of vendor’s insurance to be sure we do not allow them on premise if their policy is not up-to-date.
We learned that this additional coverage was primarily to cover CCMC staff as third party vendors already have this insurance.
Becky C. motioned to approve the insurance as long as it does not exceed the budgeted amount. Board approved.
Last modified: January 28, 2024
