Regarding the article in the “hang your hat” on Nov. 29 edition, kudos to Kathy Ryan for the article regarding the increase of association fee increase. I couldn’t have said it better, and if I can add a few points and elaborate on a couple other things.
Wentworth management is out of control and out of touch. This is evident with the increase in payroll for the employees and the incentives for doing a good job.
Doing a good job is part of coming to work every day. There are many people who want a job and want a paycheck.
I was out of work for two-and-a-half years and then got a part-time job at minimum wage for a year. There was no incentive for doing a good job. It was expected of me. Unfortunately I was laid off, and those that were kept did not get a raise. Where does Wentworth Management come off giving employees a 3 percent raise and a potential for more with incentives? Maybe it should come out of their own pockets and not from additional increases in fees to residents.
A second part of the fee increase is the increase that attached product residents are being charged. My neighborhood went up an additional $5 per month in addition to the $3 per month in the community part of the fees. As I understand, my neighborhood’s increase in fees was the lowest. Most of this is blamed on a substantial increase in insurance rates for the attached products by 30 percent (seriously). What they are saying is the people who live in attached products are a greater risk of fire and damage. If my memory serves me correct, in the last couple years, major fires occurred in single family homes and not attached products.
Surveying a number of people who live in single family homes have told me they have not seen an increase in their home insurance, and many have seen a slight decrease.
Also, the attached homes were assessed an increase in fees a few years ago to rebuild driveways that were supposed to last 20 years. They didn’t make it past five years, and we are paying dearly for the poorly built driveways with no help from Pulte or Wentworth.
In conclusion, I would recommend to the Sun City Board of Directors that they reject this budget and tell Wentworth to get serious and find ways to lower the association fees this year and in years to come.
These issues are just some of the problems.
Chuck Chodl
Neighborhood 22
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
This letter is in response to a hang your hat article written by Ms. Kathy Ryan and appearing in the Nov. 21 edition of the Sun Day. In it Ms. Ryan criticizes the three percent increase in salary and wages for the Wentworth Management team allocated in the 2013 budget. I agree with her 100 percent; it is a very bad move by Mr. Bill Pennock to give final approval for this to proceed further. What makes matters worse is that the budget lists only a yearly total for the 6000 series payroll account numbers. Individual Wentworth team members’ salaries and wages are a secret. I wonder if us residents would be shocked if we knew what they are and see the silliness of an incentive plan. Like Ms. Ryan says, “Why do we have to pay an incentive for doing a good job” to Wentworth employees?
Another area affecting payroll directly is that Wentworth Management, in my opinion, is overstaffed with employees. One department in particular is Governance and Standards. Again, Mr. Pennock has sole control over this matter.
One area where I disagree with Ms. Ryan involves her belief that the SCCAH Board of Directors can address the above problems. It is my opinion again that the SCCAH Board takes its marching orders from the Wentworth Management Executive Director and Mr. Pennock in turn follows the orders of Pulte/Del Webb management. Till Pulte leaves for good, the SCCAH Homeowners Association will be a subsidiary of Wentworth Management Co., not an equal partner. Wentworth’s focus will be Pulte oriented, not homeowner/member directed.
So where does it leave us, the residents/members of this community? Actually, all that is required of us is to pay our monthly assessment dues and not to rock the board, so to speak. Did we really need that extra $3 a month assessment fee increase for 2013? There I go – rocking the boat.
Thank you, Sun Day, for allowing me to express my opinions, and may your staff have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
Sincerely,
A Sun City resident
Differences of opinion highlight board meeting
CAM Board meetings can be straight forward, dull, and very businesslike, but the November meeting agenda included two items to be voted upon that created some interesting moments. One was Sun City’s $8,558,146 operating budget for 2013 which
passed by a 4 to 3 vote. YES: Bergstrom, VanFleet, Davis, Leopold and NO: Kirschner, Beaupre, Bayser.
The other item was the vote to authorize proceeding with the $46,000 digital sign project in the Prairie Lodge. That was budgeted for in 2011 for expenditure in 2012.
That passed 5 to 2. YES: Bergstrom, Van Fleet, Davis, Leopold, Bayser and NO Beaupre, Kirschner.
The larger than usual resident turnout saw that unanimity by all participants was not going to be the order of the day. Board members had differences of opinion and voted accordingly. Residents who addressed the board likewise expressed opposing views.
It was refreshing to observe something other than a “rubber stamp” approval process. Days before the meeting, there was a reported frenzy of emails to and from many residents expressing opposition to both matters, the budget and digital signs.
The stage was set for differences of opinion, and it did happen, in a very civil, calm, and collected manner.
Bill Clanton, N.9 chairman, expressed his approval of the proposed budget, which was shared by other N.9 Reps and the majority of N.9 residents who responded to a poll. Ed McFarland, N.41 chairman, expressed his opposition to the budget and the digital signage project.
After split votes to approve the two main issues, Al Drogosz, marketing committee chairman, on behalf of everyone who made any contribution to the project, made a presentation regarding the need for, and potential benefit of, the digital signage project.
He also talked about the benefit to the community of advising non-residents that there are opportunities to attend community functions. That would generate income for the community. After all of that, along came a soft spoken, even-tempered N.21 resident, Martha Mirek. Martha holds no community position or title, has no authority to influence anyone. She simply wanted to express her concerns and questions about whether real needs have been established and whether there is a limit to spending.
Martha asked, “Do we have to have all things all the time? Is that what we’re here for?”
Jim Darow
Sun City resident
