Anthem council faces controversy
Pulte faces more pressure from commission
by Brian DiTullio

ANTHEM – An e‑mail being circulated throughout the community has at least one member of the Anthem Community Council board of directors concerned, while Pulte Homes is being called to answer more questions by the Arizona Corporation Commission.

The e‑mail message, originating from the community group Anthem Go Getters, states:

“Rumor has it that Associated Asset Management (read Steve Peterman) and Pulte (read Jacquelyn Petroulakis, public relations manager for Pulte and president of Anthem Community Council) are going to try an end‑run to maintain control of Anthem during the ACC transition period. They have called for an executive session of the ACC to meet ... at an undisclosed location in order to subvert the election process of the Anthem Community Council Board.”

The message goes on to state Pulte and the management company intend to pull four elected positions from next year’s election so two members each from Parkside and the Country Club can be appointed, reappoint existing Pulte representatives to a one‑year term and consider postponing elections until early next year “to keep significant portions of the community from realizing their strategy for maintaining control.”

Donna Gloshen, an Anthem Community Council board member, related that she became aware of these issues through Peterman, executive director of the council. “He said we had to do it for continuity’s sake,” she stated.

Gloshen also said Peterman and Pulte were concerned the transition would leave the community in the hands of people who don’t know what they are doing. But that, noted Gloshen, is easily remedied.

“The board has in place bylaws with criteria for running for office,” she said. “All you have to have is the criteria, or attend a few sessions to learn.”

Peterman did not return calls placed by The Desert Advocate seeking comment on the matter and Petroulakis could not be reached.

“I believe there is a hidden agenda on a number of those issues,” Gloshen said about the e‑mail.

One of those issues is the proposed Arizona American Water rate hike, brought before the corporation commission in several hearings this past summer. At a hearing in July, Commissioner Kristin Mayes, along with other interested parties, posed several questions to Pulte/Del Webb Corp. about their business practices during the early stages of Anthem and whether home buyers were properly informed of the potential for large water rate increases upon build‑out of the community.

Pulte responded to those questions Aug. 17, but Mayes said she is not satisfied with the answers.

“I have reviewed Pulte’s responses to questions posed by commissioners, staff, (Residential Utility Consumer Office) and the Anthem Community Council,” she states in a letter to Pulte dated Sept. 17. “While Pulte did respond to all of the questions posed by the administrative law judge and other parties to the case, your client was largely unresponsive or provided incomplete answers to my questions.”

Mayes told the Advocate on Tuesday she is re‑posing her questions to Pulte and expects clear answers this time. “Pulte has been unresponsive to my questions and it’s going to come a head at some point... This is not in the public interest.”

Mayes said the issue of how much Pulte profited because of a faster build‑out of Anthem (initially projected as 2017‑2018, now estimated first quarter 2008) is an “important” one, and asked if it was fair for Anthem customers to pay such a high rate increase due to the shorter build‑out period. She also asked if repayment to Pulte by Arizona American Water for infrastructure costs could be spread out, but has heard nothing more about negotiations between the two companies.

No further hearings are scheduled at this point, according to Mayes. But if Pulte fails to respond to her questions, Mayes said she would request additional hearing dates for more testimony.

Anthem water customers are facing a rate hike of about 60 percent due to the payback that must be made for costs related to infrastructure placement when the planned community was built.