June Board Meeting...

I was 10 minutes late getting there today and when i walked in i was stunned. There had to be 100 or more people in attendance and they were out of agenda's. My first thought was: who did they piss off now. I quickly found out.

As they were reading the motions for approval, the one that sparked the outage was the ticket sales. Nope, not because they were automating it, but because they were taking the RV club space. Seems they have some 200 plus members, have been around almost as long as Sun City and never agreed to give up the space they have at the Sun Dial rec center (according to the president who spoke on the motion).

The board seemed surprised by that revelation (though obviously several of them went yesterday to view the outbuilding they were trying to pour them into behind Sun Dial). Actually it was more a storage shed, and wouldn't work. It appeared as if the management team was scrambling to find space to solve this mess, but it didn't happen.

The board took the right action and delayed the motion till everyone was satisfied with the outcome. As i said at the mic, the board can't make good decisions on bad information. Putting the ticketing might be best there (Sun Dial), but not at the cost of the club's removal and no place else to go.

They also approved moving forward on a way to fix the wifi issue. I was disappointed because their fix was to be accomplished by budget year 2020. This has been a problem for more than 10 years and should come as no surprise we need to move on it more quickly than that. More band-aids on broken arms. But alas, what do i know.

I will say, the open meeting format is way better than the canned crap we used to get. Far from perfect, but way better. Watch for the link when it gets posted, it's worth the wait.

 

BPearson - I did not attend the meeting, but I did watch it online.

It is hard to tell from the video what the crowd size was, but I would wager that it was probably less than 100 people. Your estimate and my guess is exactly why electronic data gathering is a must and should begin at the board meetings. Any data gathering using key fobs or rec cards must insure that a fob or card cannot be counted more than once to insure accurate and reliable data gathering.

I think everyone can agree that Wi-Fi and internet access has long been ignored in Sun City. The current Wi-Fi was done piecemeal with no vision to the future. The management believes that upgrading the connection speed will be the be all and all to fix the issue. Going forward, more and more access points and faster and faster connection speeds will be the most important thing that residents will be asking for. Long range planning must begin now to insure that Wi-FI and internet access will carry Sun City far into the future. If technology is to be used to monitor and gather data on all activities in SC I believe that independent outside evaluation and recommendations should be solicited.

The Dog park seems to come up at every board meeting. I think I heard that there are currently 188 members of the dog park and that planning should occur to provide for more and more pets in SC. That makes some sense, but right now 188 members are not all going to the dog park at the same moment on any given day. I find it hard to believe that the current dog park is over crowded. I think this is another area where electronic data gathering is a must so that the board has statistics from which to make better decisions instead of relying on what management feeds them.
I think what pet owners are looking for is a dog park that they can walk to from there residence instead of having to drive from phase 1 or 3 to phase 2 to use the dog park.

The RV club/ticketing issue was created because of a unilateral decision from management. Apparently there was little to no input/discussion with the board over this issue. Any shuffling of clubs to accommodate another club or function should be published both in the Independent and online so that members have a chance to see and understand the proposals being made. This gives the members an opportunity to decide if they want to be at the board meeting and comment on the motions.

Bill, I think you can answer the following. Why does the board take 2 months off? Management doesn't take 2 months off, and SC does not close for 2 months because of the heat.
Do board members do any research on anything SC related during their 2 months off? Why do motions and agenda items have to take a 2 month vacation? I'm sure you are going to say it is because there are less people in SC during the summer months. That is probably true. However, the turnout at yesterdays board meeting is proof that the residents are still here in the summer and interested and concerned over issues that affect them.

 

I don't know the answer to that question SCR. It's been that way as far back as i go (circa 2203). You did peak my curiosity because it seemed as i was writing the thread on the 81 recall election for the officers of the RCSC, they met all year long. When i pulled the file, that was the case. Board meetings were not suspended during July and August. I never understood the logic behind it. One of the requirements for being on the board was being available year long (i'd have to look at the exact wordage), but that included by electronic transmission.

I hate overestimating crowd size, so i was actually being conservative in my number. I was so stunned when i walked in I almost stopped to count. Being late and the meeting was already in progress i elected not to and queitly sat down. It was so crowded i head to sit in the front row where no one sits, but that was half-full as well.

You may have noted in my comments at the mic my frustration with the half-assed recommendation regarding the wifi. This has been an issue that has plagued the RCSc for at least ten years. It's the central issue of the long range planning committee because as you pointed out, everything starts with it. If there goal was to get it working immediately for the short term and then build a comprehensive plan to address the entire technology problem after that i would have been fine.

Instead what we heard was that by the end of 2020 we will have a band-aid in place. And of course the argument was it was a budgeting matter. Really? Where the hell were your concerns when we were shoveling 40 million dollars into golf? Words mean little gang; actions are almost always the end-all-be-all.

Anyone else watch the meeting? I thought it was one of the better ones i've attended in years.

 

For anyone that hasn't watched the last board meeting, here is the link.

It's pretty good. 192 views already. And then people wonder why i was in favor of recording these meetings.

 

The dog park does get quite full at times. For me that’s not the only issue. It has nothing to do with walking to a park and I doubt that is the main issue for anyone. That would be almost impossible given the size of SC. I’ve never heard anyone mention that issue. There should be a separate park for small dogs. I take my small dog to this mixed park but often need to leave immediately if many large dogs are present which is not unusual. My dog is afraid of large dogs. The club doesn’t want to make a separate space for the small dogs within this park. Most dog parks do have a separate park for small dogs.

Anyway, SC really does have many dogs and needs a second park. Lots of money spent on many clubs that fewer residents use. The dog park is always active. Every day. More people have dogs than play golf and yet we certainly have more than one of those. I’m not a part of the 188 members of the club but I use the dog park frequently so you really can’t go by club numbers only. It’s not a club, it’s a park. Many people use it who are not dog club members.

 

10/2 internet service is very slow for today’s usage. I didn’t know that speed still existed, I thought 30 or 50 was the slowest out there. I’m surprised it works at all. Indoor plumbing, electricity, and the internet are modern needs we can’t live without.

 

Funny you should mention that second park. Believe it or not reading on TOSC, way back then, about that second park being built was one big thing that cemented my decision to buy in SC. I bought and then was very disappointed when it wasn’t built. So it’s true that dog parks and dog friendly areas can attract new residents.

 

Many of us have lobbied a long time for dog parks. We take our dog to Duffeeland almost every day the weather allows. We are not Duffeeland members and I don't believe the majority of people there are either, but the members do effectively police the park as needed. By comparison, Peoria has 5 dog parks. The SC park is the only no-grass DP I've ever heard of -- granted, easy to keep clean, lower maintenance, but not useful in hot weather as the concrete/crushed granite is too hot for a dogs paws.

I can count on one hand the people that I know who walk to the park. I've never thought of Duffeeland as overcrowded any time I've been there. There's only maybe 30-35 parking spaces and they are seldom close to all used -- the majority seem to be 1 or 2 dogs each, so a crowded time might see 50 dogs? By comparison, the small dog areas in Peoria and Surprise DPs often have more dogs than Duffeeland in total and they are smaller in area.

I haven't noticed any particular friction between large and small dogs, although the smaller breeds often tend to be noisier and feisty, IMO. Our experience is the majority of dogs, barring an out and out fight, work it out on their own much faster than when we owners try to intercede. Our dog is medium sized and plays with any sized dog that will play. That usually means dogs from, say, 15 lbs to 80 lbs. Many of the dogs we've met at Duffeeland are older and don't run/play at all -- they seem content to just walk with their owners, sniff a bush or three, etc. When we took our dog to obedience training, socialization was part of the program -- there was a full range of dog sizes in the class -- chihuahuas to a St Bernard -- by the 3rd class we all got along fine -- dogs and humans.

 

Excuse me, but to tell me my dog shouldn’t be afraid of a dog 80 pounds heavier than him is just ludicrous. The fact is, he is. Small dogs do get injured by larger dogs and injuries do happen in dog parks all the time. There is a reason for the separation. It only takes one “oops” bite for a big injury to a small dog. Big dogs approach my dog frequently so to say they always leave each other alone is dumb. Dogs greet, smell and follow at times. You can take your dog wherever you want but don’t tell me not to want a small dog park for mine. I know other owners who won’t take their dogs to Duffleland because of the mix. You can socialize your own dog but you can’t socialize others.

 

Excuse me too, Cynthia -- you seem to have read a lot into what I said that I didn't say nor mean to imply. I respect what you said, and I certainly wasn't telling you what you should do. My views/experiences perhaps differ from yours -- that doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

There are a LOT of dogs in SC, from Chihuahua size to Great Danes. Most members walk our dogs along the streets or on the grass medians (and a few even sneak onto the golf courses after dark), others use the Dog Parks, either in SC or elsewhere, and some do both. It's a tall order to support our large community of dogs with a single DP. I do agree it would be great to have a divided park. But Duffeeland isn't large enough for that and to restrict it to either large/small take rights from the other. So the current realities, as I see it, are we need to coexist to use Duffeeland, we need to continue to pressure the RCSC to take action (which they've resisted for over 20-years), and we must go outside SC to use an adjacent city's DP when necessary.

I'm really tired of the RCSC's never ending chant they don't have a place to put a dog park. That's a pretty lame excuse when they can purchase property (eg Grand Ave) and spend excessive sums (40-mil) on Golf. I'm sure there are more members who are dog owners than members that golf. In fact, I'm sure there are more dog owning members than members of any club. I'm sure dog owners walk their dogs more often than golfers golf. We all pay the same assessments. This is just another blatant example of member disenfranchisement by RCSC management.

 

We are both on the same page as far as RCSC goes. Peace and happy tails fellow dogger.

 

Not a fan of an additional dog park because I remember the “stink” the neighbors on Camelot Circle put up when the original was organized. Although I’m a senior I seem to remember the dog club promised to maintain the park and then wanted to wiggle out of the deal because it was so much work.

 

If you were here back then, you'll recall there were other alternatives proposed to the RCSC for location of DPs which they did little to consider -- it appeared primarily because they didn't want to provide a DP. I have some sympathy to the adjoining properties to Duffeeland. While I've never noticed an odor problem, barking dogs can be annoying. But so can the Sundome if you live nearby and aren't into it, or the Jets from Luke, or the railroad crossing train horns, fire station sirens, etc. Most of us have learned to ignore these noises to a degree.

If you were here when Duffeeland moved under the purview of the RCSC you'll recall there were alternative locations proposed to the RCSC which they did little to consider (primarily because they didn't want to provide a DP at all I've heard). I've been to many of the DPs in surrounding communities and my recollection is they mostly have 50 yds or more open space from homes, some much more.

The RCSC needs to think outside the box on this -- instead they seemingly are content to say the problem isn't solvable and think that's the solutionand the end of it. Well, it's not going to go away since people moving here from urban areas are used to having DPs in their community and expect SC to be modern in that regard -- so the pressure to have them here will likely increase over time.

From my perspective, a dog park is like any other amenity the RCSC provides -- pools, spa, lawn bowl, golf course, etc. These are all entities the RCSC maintains -- a DP is no different. Residents certainly don't maintain the DPs in Peoria, Glendale, Surprise, Phoenix, etc., their parks department does. In SC's case the RCSC is analogous to the Parks department. Every DP I've ever used requires the owner to pick up their dog's waste, to control their dog, etc., so Duffeeland is no different in that regard, but the dog club there helps remind owners if they "forget." I've witnessed parks employees in both Glendale and Surprise asking people to leave the DP when they've violated the rules. So could the RCSC.

 

Wiggle out? The club closes Duffyland one a month to do a complete cleaning, plus owners cleaning up after their own dogs. It’s a clean DP.

 

I didn’t agree at the time Duffeeland was taken over and I still don’t agree that a club should be tasked with taking care of a SC facility. I was present when the club members tried to back out of their commitment to maintain Duffeeland. If there are actually 12,000 dogs as was mentioned during the last board meeting the owners should step up and buy the derelict property at 99th and Union Hills and build a dog park that would be the envy of all other communities. Since this property has very few neighbors it would be in my opinion a perfect spot and hopefully avoid the NIMBY issues we had with Duffeeland. To go further I would support the RCSC providing a portion of the purchase price and cost of the demolition as well as maintaining the property as fully RCSC owned and managed. If the happens I will be the first person to place a DP2-YES sign in my front yard. Is anyone up for the challenge?

 

I tend to agree that it shouldn’t be the club’s responsibility to maintain it since a it doesn’t require club membership to use it. A second dog park was already budgeted for in the past so why should owners need to buy it? I wouldn’t mind contributing though if that what was needed to get the ball rolling.

 

I would have to believe that since funds were allocated so many years ago and not used for a dog park they were reallocated to other expenditures.
Since club space is so limited and the allocation process so broken many clubs seem to resort to grabbing whatever they can get instead of thinking about the future which has lead us to the current state of chaos. While the space near the Sun Bowl might have been an OK choice 8 years ago and is very close to the clubs current space at Fairway, it doesn’t seem to me to be a large enough space for the future needs of pet owners, especially those with larger dogs which leads me in the direction of a citizen funded land purchase.
All we need now is a willing seller and a fantastic fund raiser!