Pulte Amenity Update

Amenity Report

A little over a month has passed since Pulte Management presented their “final” amenity package that would accompany the added 2500 new homes in Sun City. For many, the overview regarding the new Amenities sounded positive and the door prizes added levity to the meeting.

But, as always, the devil is in the detail. Some clubs and groups are already finding out that what will be provided in the amenity package and associated changes are quite different than expected.

Moreover, the sobering reality of the space reduction per roof top will not become fully apparent until additional homes are sold and occupied.

Little detail was provided during the presentation regarding the amount of meeting space actually provided in the new Multi-Purpose Center building. Since then, details on the square footage for the new multi-purpose meeting room space have been obtained.

Del Webb Plan
15,995 Sq. Ft. / 5000 Homes = 3.2 Sq. Ft. per Roof Top

Pulte Plan
4, 772 Sq. Ft. / 2500 Homes = 1.9 Sq. Ft. per Roof Top

Current meeting space per roof top is 68% greater than new Pulte plan


That comparison of current meeting space with the square footage proposed reveals what residents have to look forward to as the additional population from the 2500 homes arrives. Clearly, meeting space is going to be at a premium. The new meeting space is less than that available in the current Activity Center. Indeed, the new space would fit in one corner of the Ballroom.

The Resident efforts to complete surveys, discuss and analyze results over the last three years since the 2500 home addition was announced is appreciated even if those efforts came up far short of convincing the Developer to keep their earlier commitments. The “balance of the developer’s budget with resident desires” got skewed heavily toward the Developer's budget or lack thereof. As the Developer has frequently stated; The Developer will dictate the final decision. This is true no matter what input residents provide—that is just the way it is!

The Developer has made their decisions and the residents are apparently stuck with the consequences—so much for Trust and Commitments.

Developer's Word is His Bond
R. I. P.

“We technically will make the right decision and then we will keep it fair guys. You got to trust us on that as we go forward and will keep it there. How will the amenities levels be set? Will we have the same levels as 2500 more homes? Basically yes! We don’t want to add the roof tops and not keep up the amenities. When we had two golf courses with 5000, and when we went to 7500, the first decision we made was we will need a third golf course! You can see the ratio there! We will take that same kind of stance on the amenities as well.”

Gary Newman
Town Hall Meeting
October 2005

Since meeting space and parking are going to be in short supply relative to demand, it is incumbent for the CA and the CA Board to begin developing an equitable rationing strategy for prioritizing and allocation of the very limited meeting space. Some have suggested that the CA needs only to improve the utilization of current space—that evening hours are rarely used. Perhaps Governance Committees and the Board could lead that effort in improving utilization by holding their meetings in the evening. This would have an added benefit for those residents that are working or playing during the day; those residents could then attend the evening meetings.

Trailer Barn at 105 Coyote Trail

Any Developer that would, in order to save a few dollars on rental space, plop down three huge construction trailers in a residentially zoned neighborhood and across the street from existing homes can’t be all that concerned about resident input or customer satisfaction. And, to describe the resulting Trailer Barn as “a structure that resembles a nice looking home” says volumes about the Developer’s emerging architectural standards.

This newsletter was based on the best information we could obtain. If there are incorrect quotes or data, we would appreciate advising us with the corrections which we will pass on to residents.

School Property Tax
Read this editorial that is in the Austin American Statesman that explains to all Sun City Residents 65 and older why they should vote in the May 12th election. Forward this on to all your friends. Let’s make sure we get the same tax break every other state homeowner got last year and will get this year. The on May 18th vote for Jack Stroobandt for Sun City Community Association Board of Director.
Let's give older folks a break, too

Most Texas voters probably are not aware that there is a constitutional amendment on the May 12 ballot this year. Yes, another one.
The Texas Constitution is one of the oldest, and longest, in the country. It has been amended more than 400 times since its adoption in 1876 because government power must be explicitly outlined in the document. That's why voters across the length and breadth of Texas are asked to vote on the most minute, technical and obscure issues imaginable.
Next month's election is to fix a problem created when the Legislature approved a reduction in school property taxes in 2005. That change was approved, after numerous failed attempts, in the third special session of the Legislature that year.
When lawmakers voted for a one-third reduction in school property taxes beginning in 2006 and to be completed this year, they forgot about the homestead exemption for senior citizens and people with disabilities. So the Legislature in session rushed through a resolution in February to fix that oversight.
The state constitution caps school property taxes for homeowners 65 years and older and those who are disabled. But they did not get the same reduction when the property tax cut for schools was finally voted on two years ago.
Voters will have a chance to remedy that at the ballot box on May 12 by approving a constitutional amendment to make the one-third cut apply to those whose homesteads are capped because of age or disability. Voters should approve that amendment.
Only part of the cut was seen in homeowners' tax bills last year. The bigger part of the reduction will occur when tax bills are sent out this fall. If the amendment is approved by voters, as it should be, those with capped property taxes will see the reduction on their tax bills.
Lawmakers recognized the need for senior citizens to be included in the property tax reduction for schools, so they quickly passed Senate Joint Resolution 13 to get the measure on the spring ballot.
Although this constitutional amendment should pass easily, its approval is not guaranteed. A fast-moving, modern state like Texas really should not have to ask voters to approve every niggling change in the structure of government. Texas needs to modernize in many ways, and a new constitution is one of them.
Few of the state's voters are likely to bother to go to the polls to cast a ballot for such an esoteric — though important, especially to senior citizens — amendment. Most won't bother. And they shouldn't have to, really. A technical change like the one facing voters May 12 ought to be handled in the legislative process, not at the ballot box.
But until the Texas Constitution catches up with the rest of Texas, voters will regularly be asked to vote on technical, difficult-to-understand governmental matters framed in impenetrable legalese.
If you do vote May 12, support the amendment on the ballot. Senior citizens deserve the same tax break every other state homeowner got last year and will get this year.
Jack Stroobandt
Visit my blog: http://letsbackjack.blogspot.com/

DEVELOPER SUBSIDY??????

Miscalculations, misinterpretations, and even mistakes
have impacted Developer subsidies and Reserve funds over the past several years. Now we have an interpretation that no subsidy payment will be made by the Developer despite the substantial operating loss incurred by the Community Association during 2005. This interpretation also may diminish the reimbursement of funds for Reserve accounts if allowed to stand.

To paraphrase former Senator Everett Dirksen--
A million here and a million there, and soon you're talking about real money.

Unfortunately, the real money in the Operating Account and the Reserve accounts is what is being negatively impacted. And guess how it will be restored?? You may want to check your assessment increases!

Why the Developer should benefit from not paying the 2005 subsidy merely because they reimbursed the CA for past errors and underpayments defies all logic.

The open letter to the Board below outlines this issue and calls for Board action to correct the current subsidy issue and to make changes to prevent reoccurrences related to Reserve fund reimbursements.

At the September 28th Board meeting [9 am] the Board of Directors will discuss and vote on the “calculation” of the subsidy for 2005.
_________________________________
Open Letter to SCTX Board of Directors

Chairman Newman and SCTX Board members.

The Developer reportedly will make NO subsidy payment for 2005 despite a CA operating loss approaching $400,000. A reimbursement of funds by the developer for errors/underpayment of subsidy payments during the years 1995-2004 is reported to be the reason for no developer subsidy payment for 2005 for the operating losses incurred.
The CC&R’s contain no provision for extra-ordinary, non-operating receipts [including reimbursement for prior year underpayments]. Thus, ALL funds received are utilized to offset developer subsidy payments, according to the interpretation apparently being followed.
Does this make any sense?
Why should the Developer benefit from not paying the 2005 subsidy merely because they reimbursed the CA for past errors and underpayments? An objective review of using funds arising from underpayment of subsidies in prior years to eliminate subsidy payments in the current year would be considered double counting and completely illogical. If interpretations of rules are illogical or contrary to intent they are generally set aside. It might be noted, a similar interpretation that caused Charter Club year-end balances [amounting to $195,333 in 1993-94] to be used to reduce Developer subsidy payments was dropped by Board action earlier this year.

Given the subsidy situation, it useful to review the very narrow application of the CC&R language in context with the accounting errors discovered in early 2005 that gave rise to the reimbursement for the Developer’s subsidy underpayments. According to various reports [obtained well after the process was finalized], the errors/miscalculations were discovered in early 2005, an independent Accounting firm review was completed in August 11, 2005 and the Board approved the reimbursement by “Action without a formal meeting” in late December 2005

The independent Accounting Firm’s report found, using agreed upon methodology, the Developer had underpaid the CA $2,194,947 during the period 1995 thru 2004. Under normal procedures and absent errors, funds approximating the $2.2 million would have been credited to the CA’s Operating Account during the years covered. Little is known about issues giving rise to the negotiations that followed because the problem identification and resolution took place behind close doors and without general resident participation, but that is another issue.
See Feb 11 issue http://scinform.blogspot.com/


Only $809,262 ended up in the CA Operating Account. Of that, $300,000 was reserved for Federal income taxes. The CA Operating Account would be further reduced by elimination of the subsidy payment to cover the approximately $400,000 operating loss for 2005. Not a very positive outcome for Residents! It is difficult to fathom that such an outcome was intended by those involved in the decision making process.

More problems ahead?
Importantly, accounting treatment proposed for the 2005 subsidy calculation could continue to adversely impact CA finances if followed. In an earlier accounting problem/misapplication of funds regarding Reserve Funds, a resolution was reached with the Developer. The Developer committed in writing to restore Reserve Fund balances up to 70% of “Fully Funded Balances”. While the precise amount the Developer owes the CA has not yet been determined, prior estimates placed the amount in the $2 million range. The Developer payment is anticipated following a new Reserve Fund Study in 2007. It is important that Reserve Fund payment not be diminished by an accounting interpretation that is contrary to the intent of the commitment.

Board action requested
Because this issue seems to be as much about Business practices and Trust as it is about accounting interpretations, it is requested that the Board follow the “Business intent” regarding prior year[s] underpayment and the 2005 subsidy payment as well as modifying the CC&R’s to alleviate future problems. As noted, current accounting interpretation most likely runs contrary to the intent of those involved and should be set aside. Other accounting conventions can be utilized. The Board of Directors, even though consisting of a majority of Pulte directors, has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the residents. Toward that end, it is requested that the Board

1] Take action to assure that the Developer pays a 2005 subsidy amount, exante the funds received for prior year[s] subsidy underpayment. If necessary, Audited Accounting Statements for year[s] impacted by the underpayment should be restated.

2] Take action to modify the CC&R’s so that Federal income Taxes are minimized and Developer Subsidy payments are not adversely impacted by future extra-ordinary non-operating payments, specifically for reimbursement of Reserve Funds and the interest earned on Reserve Fund Accounts.

Thank you for your consideration
Roby Sloan
116 Saddle
____________________________________
SC Information Goal

Our goal is to foster transparent discussions and actions regarding the issues confronting our Community Association. We welcome an open dialogue regarding the actions proposed and why they are proposed. And, we would very much appreciate additional input from the many residents that have offered ideas, concepts and details about how to address issues confronting the CA. We welcome comment on the problems outlined as well as the solutions—both positive and negative [hopefully constructive].

SC Information Mission

Our mission is to make Sun City Texas a community with a solid financial base with an active adult environment. If you support our mission please forward this email to your neighbors and friends. If your neighbors or friends do not have access to the internet, make them a hard copy. Only with your support will we be successful with proposed actions. If you wish to have your name added or deleted from the email data base, email jackstro@verizon.net

Future newsletters will focus on the financial aspects of Operations, future Plans and how different approaches may be utilized to address poor financial results. For additional information and past [Archived] newsletters see:
http://scinform.blogspot.com/ Sun City Residents Make Sun City Great

What the Heck--Its only Money!!

A new look --click here http://www.superlaugh.com/1/behappy.htm then hit Play

It’s Your $$$$$$

Unofficial Newsletter “Fair and Balanced Opinions” From Sun City Residents

It is important that Residents attend the “Town Hall” meeting April 27th at 9:00am in the Activity Center Atrium on the Food & Beverage issue. Many of you have emailed the SC Information newsletter stating your concern regarding a subsidy that you may have to pay to the successful F&B bidder. Most residents thought the restaurants were being out-sourced in order to eliminate the substantial losses and to avoid subsidies. Some have stated “if the restaurants can’t operate at a profit, close them down and use the floor space for meeting rooms”. Only the Board can make that decision.

Unofficial facts:
Sun City Food & Beverage services had a deficit of $356 thousand in 2005, as noted in the December 30th CA Budget Report. Add Golf losses and the total for these two enterprises approached $600,000 for 2005. It was these very unsatisfactory financials that prompted the CA Board of Directors [at the urging by the SC Information Newsletter and residents] to begin the process of outsourcing the Restaurants and Golf. In a few months, SCTX will reach its planned maturity of 5000 homes. Had Pulte not announced the DW2500 expansion, residents would soon be solely responsible for the financial performance.
Some say why worry about a Restaurant Subsidy since the Developer will cover it anyway. Actually, this is not quite how it really works. First of all the Developer’s Subsidy for 2005 will likely cover less than half the losses of Restaurants and Golf for last year. Moreover, over the past few years the Developer’s subsidy has markedly dropped as it was offset by boosting resident assessments. So residents are really paying for all the amenities received. An additional reason for not obligating the CA to unacceptable costs or contractual terms is that they are difficult to extinguish if a new direction is desired. The Golf Task force has apparently confronted this issue with the Golf equipment component. Even though a Golf Management company may well be able to operate with much less equipment expense, the CA has elected to continue paying for all equipment currently owned and under lease.
Bottom line—ongoing efficient operations are important and contractual commitments binding the CA [residents] deserve serious scrutiny as well as full disclosure to the residents. Residents ultimately foot the bill.


Questions that need to be addressed

Residents desire to have a number of questions answered before a contact is signed largely because there has been so little meaningful information provided to date in the NRO newsletter. Fragmentary information has leaked out but the CA and the Board of Directors have maintained an unexplained degree of silence about this process. It been rumored that the request for bids were sent by the CA to only a few selected companies before the task force was formed; that only two bids were ultimately evaluated; and that the lack of bids was raised as a major issue. And there are wide ranging estimates reported about the amount of ongoing costs incurred by the CA as well as size of subsidies and management fees. Residents are eagerly awaiting clarification on all of these issues as well as what is going to happen in general.

Letter of Intent has apparently been signed on behalf of the board of Directors.

What are the financial penalties (how much) if the CA does not sign the contract?

Contract

What will be the total annual financial exposure [fees, ongoing costs, and subsidy] for the CA/Residents under the new vendor?

If the new vendor makes investment/modifications to the restaurants, will the CA be required to fund these changes?

Who will be responsible for all utilities, property taxes, equipment repair and replacement, the CA or the new vendor?

Who will continue to make payments to the equipment replacement reserve fund, the CA or new vendor?

Will the CA be obligated to pay management contract fees on an ongoing basis? If so, how much and how long?

Will the CA continue to receive the income from the rental of the Ball Room, Activity Center Atrium, and Pavilion? Please explain the financial arrangement for special events i.e. weddings, large meeting, etc.?

Will the CA receive the revenue for the vending machines? Please explain the arrangements.
What is the length of the contract?

Is there a termination clause that allows the CA Board to cancel the contract? Are there financial penalties?

General Questions
How many contracts where evaluated?

Is it true that only restaurant management firms were contacted?

Sun City Grand Board minutes indicate they leased at least one of their restaurants; what firms were invited and considered for this option?

Does the Board of Directors [especially Resident Board members] feel that the Restaurant Outsourcing Process resulted in getting the best financial terms obtainable in operating our F&B services?

Is the CA Board still considering a survey that would ask the residents if they would support a subsidy for restaurants? Is it fair to the new vendor if residents continue not to support the restaurants?

We will send the Board members a copy of this email; just like we have always done in the past. We ask them to respond to the above plus those additional questions from the floor. If you want, you can print this and submit it at the meeting.

Newsletter Objective

Our goal is to foster transparent discussions and actions regarding the issues confronting our Community Association. We welcome an open dialogue regarding the actions proposed and why they are proposed. And, we would very much appreciate additional input from the many residents that have offered ideas, concepts and details about how to address issues confronting the Community Association. We welcome comment on the problems outlined as well as the solutions—both positive and negative [hopefully constructive].

Our Mission

Our mission is to make Sun City Texas a community with a solid financial base with an active adult environment. If you support our mission please forward this email to your neighbors and friends. If your neighbors or friends do not have access to the internet, make them a hard copy. Only with your support will we be successful with the proposed actions. If you wish to have your name added or deleted from the email data base, email jackstro@verizon.net

Future newsletters will focus on the financial aspects of Operations, Future Plans and how different approaches may be utilized to address poor financial results. For additional information and past [Archived] newsletters see:

http://scinform.blogspot.com/

Sun City Residents Make Sun City Great

Please forward this email to your email friends

Progress …. Looking forward

Looking forward…… Transparency? Maintained homes? Restaurant outsourcing? Amenities?

Unofficial News “Fair and Balanced Opinions” From Sun City Residents

About a year ago this month, frustrations were building that ultimately gave impetus to development of the SC Information Newsletter and associated http://scinform.blogspot.com/

Status of SCTX Governance-- March 2005
Residents were not generally permitted to raise issues or even voice a comment at Governance meetings; agendas for Governance meetings were not readily available; records of meetings and associated documents were not readily accessible and in some instances were available only after exercising member’s rights under the "Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act" which requires disclosure of certain information. Many Governance meetings were held behind closed doors; decisions were arrived at in secret and without broad resident input; and then not always communicated. Even the election process was modified to permit only pre-approve Resident Candidates to seek Governance positions. SCTX was truly following a “mushroom management” style of Governance.

Status of SCTX Governance-- March 2006
The purpose of this issue of the SC Information Newsletter is not to dwell on the past. The description above is only used to provide a baseline to illustrate that much has changed during the past several months and to think about what the future could bring with a little effort. Agendas for most meetings are generally timely and available; records of meetings and associated documents are now generally accessible, although some now are less useful because of reduced content and are available only after some lag time. The greatest progress has been in the structure of Governance Meetings. For the most part, meetings are open to the Residents and Residents are invited to raise issues and provide input to the decision process. Perhaps most important in all this and what could be enhanced and embraced by various Governance group was the Board of Director’s Commitment to TRANSPARENCY in the Governance process.

One author recently described Transparency as a condition opposite of secrecy! “Secrecy means deliberately hiding your actions, transparency means deliberately revealing them. It is the deliberate attempt to move from a secretive or opaque organization to one that encourages open access to information, participation, and decision making, which ultimately creates a higher level of trust among stakeholders”

Transparency has been a principle goal of SC Information Newsletter and associated http://scinform.blogspot.com/ since their inception.
The charge by the SCTX Board to the “Strategic Planning” Committee to review Transparency and communication Governance issues and to report back at the March Board meeting was encouraging. Additionally, the recently developed and soon to be launched Web portal will provide an outstanding capability to greatly expand resident interaction in the Governance process. The very sizable portion of Sun City population that has online capability provides a major opportunity. See http://www.sctxcompclub.org/MtgFollowUp/Mar13_06WebPortal.html

Governance bodies embracing Transparency by providing robust information content for the web site could greatly expand the two-way flow of information as well as insights into the decision processes by utilizing the new Portal. “Best practices” to build upon abound; deliberative SCTX Groups need only to review the Golf Task Force web site: http://www.geocities.com/sctxgolftaskforce/index.html
or the Computer Club for ideas on archival capabilities: http://www.sctxcompclub.org/Archives/Archives.html
Additionally, the City of Georgetown and Williamson County offer examples of excellent processes regarding open meetings, second readings on important actions to allow for resident input and ethics rules to prevent interest conflicts. These practices may have been put in place because of legal requirements that do not extend to Associations, but good practices should not require legislation to implement. Good ideas should be embraced no matter what the source.
Transparency is not a panacea—Bad decisions can still occur. Transparency provides only a framework and openness to the decision processes that enhances the odds of better decisions.

Perhaps a theme song could cheer up this effort-- http://sunshineweek.blogs.com/my_weblog/files/blues.mp3




Looking Forward
Many of the issues that have been raised and commented on in recent issues of the
SC Information Newsletter will be discussed and perhaps decided at the upcoming SCTX Board on March 23rd. It is hoped that residents that have views on issues to be discussed will attend and perhaps voice their constructive comments.

Maintained Landscaped Homes—this issue has now been thoroughly discussed and action should be forthcoming—only the details remain.
Many of the problems of this program seem to be rooted in the lack of separation of Developer responsibility and CA obligation. It is hoped that the Resident Board members will consider developing management processes for the CA to avoid future potential interest conflicts. Given that several hundred homes are now included in this program and as many as 800-900 more are proposed by the Developer, it is perhaps prudent for the SCTX Board to consider establishing on ongoing Resident [landscape maintenance] Committee to monitor this program.

Restaurant Outsourcing—Many residents favored leasing one or both of the Restaurants as a method of eliminating losses or subsidies. But the CA [before the F&B committee was formed] chose to invite only a few Restaurant Management companies to bid on Food and Beverage operations. Lack of information regarding the CA’s pre-bid methodology; and the F&B committee’s approach to the issue, evaluation process and ultimate recommendation to the Board has spawned much conversation and speculation within the Community. Just a little Transparency would have helped this process. The SC Information Newsletter is eagerly awaiting whatever information the Board is willing to provide.

Election Policy-- in January, selecting Resident Board member candidates by the Nominating Committee was changed to an open election process supervised by the Elections Committee. Any Resident that has lived in SCTX for one year or more and is in good standing can run for the Resident Board position. If a candidate does not receive fifty percent of the vote, a run off will be scheduled to establish a majority vote. We compliment the Board for opening up the election process. We remain hopeful that additional Resident Board members will be added to the current Developer controlled Board in the near future.
For the current one CA Board opening, Candidate filing will be from April 1 to April 15. May 5 has been set as election date. Absentee balloting will be April 24 through April 29.

Amenities—The Developer has “charged” the CA and the Property and Grounds Committee to survey the residents as to their amenity desires after 2006. The charge letter states “Some residents have stated they desire to know “our amenity formula” right now to ensure the level of amenities is not short-changed.” It is true that many residents do believe that there should be a more than a verbal assurance that “ the level of amenities is not short-changed.”
While all residents welcome an opportunity to offer opinion on whether they prefer pickle ball to soft ball, many residents believe the real issue is whether there is a firm intention to provide for the added population comparable amenities on a timely basis.
Local Pulte management has been queried by letter as to the Corporation’s receptivity to providing a written commitment to provide comparable amenities for the additional 2500 homes and those amenities be phased in so as to minimize overcrowding of existing amenities. The response was not encouraging; it was stated “Del Webb has been planning amenities for active adult communities for 44 years, and we stand behind our brand…..” That is fine, but Pulte bought out Del Webb in 2001, and the new Management announced that SCTX would be capped at 5000 homes and they would sell the Northern properties. That has turned out not quite true but plans often change with different corporate leadership.
Many Sun City residents have experienced their company philosophy and culture change drastically when they were merged or purchased by a larger company. Pulte and the old Del Webb are clearly different companies with different business approaches to development. One needs only to drive through the neighborhoods adjoining or play the respective golf courses of White Wing and Legacy to visually see some of the differences. Tee box relocations on WW are being considered because of closeness homes to fairways. Next week, the Developer will be asking City Council permission to build nearly third of the homes for DW2500 on smaller than the City standard sized lots. It is hoped the Amenities are not downsized as well.
In 2002, a commitment regarding Amenities was made for the 5000 homes —why the reluctance now? Until a few months ago, current residents knew exactly the amount of Amenities that would available for their use. Now, sales to new residents will be predicated upon existing amenities and a promise of “some” more to come. If comparable amenities do not materialize, the losers will be the current residents.

Paradoxically [to the current approach], the 2002 commitment was made prior to any resident surveys. A number of 88,000 square feet of building space [located on 70.6 acres] was referenced—half that—44,000 is a number to remember. It will be an early barometer of whether the Developer’s verbal statements regarding the “same level” and “similar dollars” are being met.
The Corporate statement on the Pulte/Del Webb SCTX web that: “We reserve the right to modify or discontinue plans for the amenities in our communities” suggest that business prudence would dictate a need for a written commitment regarding amenities. We ask that the Resident Board members weigh in on this issue—Do you believe it is in the best interest of residents to rely solely upon verbal assurances regarding future amenities?

Newsletter Objective
Our goal is to foster transparent discussions and actions regarding the issues confronting our Community Association. We welcome an open dialogue regarding the actions proposed and why they are proposed. And, we would very much appreciate additional input from the many residents that have offered ideas, concepts and details about how to address issues confronting the Community Association. We welcome comment on the problems outlined as well as the solutions—both positive and negative [hopefully constructive].

Our Mission
Our mission is to make Sun City Texas a community with a solid financial base with an active adult environment. If you support our mission please forward this email to your neighbors and friends. If your neighbors or friends do not have access to the internet, make them a hard copy. Only with your support will we be successful with proposed actions. If you wish to have your name added or deleted from the email data base, email jackstro@verizon.net

Future newsletters will focus on the financial aspects of Operations, Future Plans and how different approaches may be utilized to address poor financial results. For additional information and past [Archived] newsletters see:

http://scinform.blogspot.com/

Sun City Residents Make Sun City Great