Thank you! This is quite informative and helpful. Definitely a lot to think
about.
I appreciate you sharing this.
Best,
Margo Martin

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 3:27 PM Christine M Campo <happyca...@pobox.com>
wrote:

> Hello LincolnTalk!
>
>
>
> An email has been circling around in favor of the Commons expansion. I
> have some close friends whose parents are also at The Commons but have a
> very different take on the proposed expansion.  I have included below the
> bulleted comments from the original email (in blue) and the coordinating
> response (in black) on behalf of my friends.
>
>
>
> I’m only the messenger here…
>
>
>
> Town Meeting, December 2, 2023
>
>
>
> One issue that is not on many people’s radar but a critical one for many
> is the vote we will take regarding “THE COMMONS EXPANSION.”
>
>
>
> It will come after the community center and before the HCA. There is
> concern that many will leave for a break in between allowing a small
> majority to make this critical decision.
>
>
>
> Highlighted Concerns (in bullets) from the original email and responses
> (in bold):
>
>
>
> The Commons is a non-profit organization where all profits are funneled
> back into the organization.
> This is very misleading.  The owners keep perpetuating the idea that being
> a non-profit is equal to doing nothing wrong. "Non-profit" is simply a tax
> status. It is true that a non-profit cannot be owned or sold *- but
> its assets can be*. There is little limit on what kinds of* expenses *a
> non-profit can pay, including high salaries, and bonuses, and no control
> over with whom they sign contracts and how lucrative they are. Because
> Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs) are not regulated, there is
> plenty of risk that these kinds of abuses can happen.
>
> There are currently property systems failing with huge costs associated to
> fix them - including septic, roof infrastructure and siding on almost all
> buildings.
> This is dramatic and not truthful- the entire septic system was just
> replaced- and I have not heard about roofing issues (my mother has lived
> there for almost 12 years). The only siding issues that have been
> identified are on the skilled nursing building, and these are related to
> contractor failures, which are being remediated. There ARE kitchen
> deficiencies (too small for the current population, let alone an increased
> population), carpet and painting to be done in common areas and the parking
> is too limited. These have not been addressed because the property does not
> have sufficient capital reserves to pay for all of the upgrades; the former
> owners paid themselves big distributions rather than investing in the
> property. And, when they sold, they took a lot of money out of the
> transaction, instead of leaving it with the property. This is really one of
> our biggest concerns; we do not want this to happen again. There are
> currently no guarantees if the property is sold or profits generated from
> the expansion, that the net revenues will stay with the property.
>
> The expansion would generate an additional 1.2 million free cash flow that
> would go directly into repairing and maintaining the property.
> This is a huge point of concern as there has been a lack of financial
> projections provided for the as-is buildout and the proposed expansion.
> What has been provided to date *provides no detail* to how it is that
> this buildout will actually generate $1.1MM in cash flow. If that
> projection IS correct, then is 3+ years of construction all over the campus
> (remember many of the people are on walkers, wheelchairs, etc.), worth
> $1.1MM of cash, which will take 5 years to get there? Some of these units
> sell for over $1MM alone. Something does not add up.
>
>
>
> Running elderly housing in general is an increasingly costly endeavor and
> not permitting the Expansion would increase an already substantial resident
> monthly assessment to increase.
> Not clear that: a) monthly fees won't go up anyway as they have every year
> and b) that the way to improve that is by adding more units, which require
> taking on new debt= more expenses.  AND more residents will require more
> dining room space and staffing for services; they are already struggling to
> provide sufficient staffing for the current population.  The
> owner/developer has estimated this project will require a minimum of
> $12-$14 million more debt and it is already carrying approximately $105MM
> of debt now. This will add to an increasing cash flow burden on the
> property.
>
>
>
> The Commons is part of a Pilot tax program and pays the town taxes making
> it one of the only non-resident tax bases in Lincoln.
> The Commons does make a “Payment in Lieu of Taxes”, which is good for
> Lincoln (tax revenue), but that will be the case whether or not the
> expansion takes place.
>
>
>
> Residents are well aware of the years of construction and inconvenience
> but are still willing to support this because of the financial needs of the
> property.
> Residents have been told that this expansion “MUST go through” by the
> management and a "pro" group led by the resident council. Management cannot
> be neutral. It is their job to get the expansion passed. They are pushing
> this expansion instead of providing balanced information to the whole
> community. Residents who are against the expansion report feeling “shunned”
> by some of those who support it. There is no evidence that critical
> questions have been asked by the resident council about the true financial
> impacts of the expansion, and if these questions have been asked and
> answered, our parents have not seen the answers. What continues to be
> spread is the idea/threat that The Commons will be in financial trouble if
> this expansion does not take place, however no evidence of this has ever
> been provided. This is scaring residents and they are accepting this threat
> instead of asking critical questions about: the
> owner/management/development team, about the detailed financial
> projections, the detailed construction phasing (not clear on the plans, or
> from any answers from owners or their presentations), financing costs,
> repayment scenarios, or any guarantees that reserves or profits will remain
> at the asset level (property) instead of going up to the owners (despite
> being a non-profit structure, cash can still be distributed in many ways
> such as poorly supervised contracts, and salaries).  Residents are afraid.
> It is being whispered that if they do not do this expansion,
> the Commons will go bankrupt, all the while the CEO of the non-profit
> owner, has stated in writing, as recently as October 2023, that the
> "Commons' operations are stable" and "maintains occupancy at 100%! It
> generates a modest operating surplus, and it maintains cash and reserves of
> over $18 million..."
>
>
>
> So, which is it?
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, most residents are not asking, because they may not have
> confidence in their understanding of finances or are afraid to "make
> waves" and be the reason The Commons "goes under".  Remember, The vast
> majority of the population is from a generation where they were taught NOT
> to speak up, and most are over 75 and female; many of whom were not
> responsible for their household finances.
>
>
>
> There have been over a year of meetings, compromises, listening sessions
> and communications with the town and most importantly the residents and
> while it is impossible to make everyone happy, the administration has
> worked hard to hear and support everyone in this process, adjusting where
> possible.
>
> It is true there have been many meetings with residents, but that was
> after a failed attempt to ram the expansion through without any process or
> discussion with residents earlier this year. Ownership re-grouped and
> realized they would need the support of residents to get through zoning
> approval. Many residents report that they have been spoken AT vs having
> conversations and that there is a real sense of pushing this project at all
> costs. Management and the Resident Council leaders are not neutral and are
> very aligned in influencing residents. The Resident Council should be
> neutral and ensure all voices are heard, but there is not an ombudsman role
> here; The Resident Council sent a newsletter to residents urging them to
> vote “for” the project that “the majority of residents” ‘want’ this
> project. This is not true, and in fact they continue to recite a survey
> they took of residents as being the evidence that residents were “for” this
> project. The Commons had originally planned to conduct a two-question
> survey asking residents: 1) do you understand why an expansion is
> necessary, and 2) do you support the proposed plan? When it became clear
> that many residents would answer yes to the first question and no to the
> second question, the second question was dropped.
>
>
>
> They have done ZERO anonymous surveys. At the last Resident Council
> meeting, a resident who was known to be against the project was "shouted
> down" and not allowed to speak, and another resident was shown the door. It
> is because of this environment that many Commons residents are afraid to
> come to the Town meeting and vote, where they must face this group of other
> residents so ardently for an expansion (without analytical back-up
> supporting this position).
>
>
>
> The expansion would allow for financial stability in a time where health
> and hospitality costs are at their highest.
>
> This is an easy generic statement to write, but the lack of evidence for
> this is shocking. It is amazing that there is so little detailed
> information to prove that this expansion will be beneficial to the
> residents/ or accomplish its currently stated goals. The resulting asset
> which will have more units, and more cars on site will still not be
> sufficient (they are planning to add more parking, however, it appears to
> not account for the larger population that will be on site post expansion,
> including their respective aides and their cars that need a place to park
> every day.  Parking is already insufficient for the residents on site
> today; they will be adding 28 more units and 52 additional parking spaces,
> but this will still be insufficient.
>
> They have estimated that in 2028 the "Community Enhancement Plan" adding
> 28 units will bring an additional $1.1MM to the property, suggesting that
> it will take 5 years to get to an additional $1.1MM of cash; after all the
> disruption and changes to the site that were never anticipated by the
> current owners, is this worth it?  And if it is, what guarantees or
> safeguards will the owners put in place to ensure the property is
> efficiently run and cash held for the benefit of the residents and future
> capital needs of the property?
>
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply via email to