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.
