RCSC 990 tax filings Someone needs to see these, I just don’t know who.

Good point jeb. I think the main concern is not that we are heavily subsidizing golf, but it's the way the actual costs are being shifted and hidden from the Membership?

I agree, golf is a major draw to Sun City, we just need to be smart about how we finance it and transparency would go a long way to understanding the situation.

In regards to spending money....One of my concerns is the fact that the RCSC spent millions of dollars on recreation center number 8 with Grand, but the population of Sun City is finite. It's not like our community keeps growing and we need to keep adding more recreation centers!

A comment I'm sure will be very controversial, but it's only a comment...a devil's advocate might suggest why spend over 40 million dollars on Mountain View when Fairway is less than 2 miles away? Why not just build a very nice theater on that location and keep the outdoor sport venues of lawn bowling, mini-golf, and add more pickleball courts?

I will now don my flack jacket! Commence fire!

 

So Jeb, the agreements made in 1977 should mean nothing? Our history should mean nothing. Those are basically the position the GM took to put us where we are today. If that is the case, and it may well be, then I am wasting my time. Truly trying to understand that mindset but in all honesty I can’t get my head around it. Help me understand how the terms the golf courses were bought under simply don’t matter?

No flack jacket needed FYI, it is a reasonable question?

 

Bill, I am a firm believer in old adage: "Those that don't learn history are doomed to repeat it", so yes I think history is very very very important and I sincerely thank you for educating all of us. I don't want you to stop.
But my point is: how do we make that relevant now? We can't get the 25 million back. We can't get the old GM or old Boards to pay it back. I'm not asking to forget or be silent about 1977 agreement, it's a great example of why the Board needs to make its finances transparent and great example of why we don't want sheep as Board members and great example of why we can't let the tail wag the dog with an over controlling GM.
I just want to be part of a discussion and solution going forward which is why I'm asking people's opinions: Does it need to be self-sustaining NOW? And if not, What's reasonable?

 

Fair point jeb and exactly why i have said repeatedly, this isn't about recovering anything from years gone by. What we can't do is continue down the same road going forward. Just for shits and giggles i ran the year end numbers for 2020 and 2021 from the RCSC financial reports for golf. I mentioned in one of the myriad of posts i have done that the general manager told me "golf had saved our butts" when the pandemic hit (2021, 2022).

Most of you know, when everything shut down, golf stayed open. A boatload of members got angry about it, i wasn't one of them. I always understood how important the revenue side of golf was to the RCSC. What i didn't know was what the expense side was. They never showed those figures anywhere. In fact, even if you could try and follow the bouncing ball, it would have been impossible. During the now departed gm's tenure, just the maintenance side of the equation changed 3 times. Virtually impossible to track.

That is why the 990's were so important a find. We didn't have to guess any longer, we now know in 2019, the expense sheet for golf exceeded 8 million dollars. What i don't know is what goes into the revenue portion. Does it include merchandise, driving range and cart rental? While it is less than a million dollars a year (from those categories), there is a cost side of buying golf cars, buying merchandise and buying range balls. I just don't know how they are calculated

What i do know is even if i add in those other items from the RCSC end of year summary, the total revenue for golf is approximately 7 million dollars (2021 and 2022). I have no reason to believe the expense side went down from 2019 and we know that was 8 million dollars plus. So, if somehow losing a million dollars in revenue in 2021 and 2022 "saved our butts," someone has to explain how that can possibly be.

Everything i have written regarding golf is about going forward. The simple reality is we probably should be subsidizing golf, but that was a decision that should have been made by the community, or at worst, the board with the knowledge of the community. It wasn't. Let me repeat, that question/issue never was brought before either the community or the board. It was a unilateral choice by the gm. I understand why she made it. She quickly came to understand that when she raised the price on a round of golf, less rounds were played.

The new mantra/measuring stick for golf was reaching 300,000 rounds of golf. The fallacy of that was to reach those numbers they had to give golf rounds away via the full play pass. They know that, they refuse to admit it. My focus is we try and move forward with absolute transparency. I can tell you with some degree of certainty, virtually none of the board members over the last 12-15 years have any idea how much we have spent subsidizing golf. And if the did know, and if they did buy a full play pass, they have personally benefited from their actions and it would be a stone cold conflict of interest breach of their fiduciary obligations. And, just a reminder, that is what Karen was allegedly fired for.

The other aspect of transparency is the importance of showing all of us a break out of the money spent from the PIF account. That shouldn't even be a disputed question. Along with that, the new general manager should do it in a way where the golf side of the ledger (there are two, golf and amenities) should be distributed where the expenditures belong. Not hiding money spent by showing it under amenities when it is indeed a golf building. And to be clear, i voted on PIF allocations for golf, the courses are part of the amenity packages and need to be kept up.

Going forward, the days of not telling or pretending how and where money is spent should be long gone. It is our community, it is our money and it is our future that is being impacted by the choices of a few, rather than listening to the voices of the many. We are on the same page, i just understand none of the things that happened over the past 15 years were in accordance to how Sun City was built and why it was successful.

 

Some interesting comments on one of the Next Door Sun City sites. Seems one of the posters was critical of the conditions on some of the RCSC courses. The minute anyone is critical of anything, people come out in defense of all things RCSC related. The next course of action is to call them names and tell them to move. Ouch. People are entitled to their opinions, even if we disagree. What i always hope for is legitimate discussions with good back and forth.

It was interesting, the thread began with a poster asking how to "privatize" the RCSC and make everything "pay to play." This isn't a new or novel idea, it was pushed in the early 80's when DEVCO left and stopped subsidizing the community. Sadly, Next Door (like Facebook) isn't a good place to debate or discuss anything in depth. Trying to explain the tax advantages and the community documents to rationalize why it wouldn't work is virtually impossible, there's way too much meat on that bone.

From that single question came the arguing about golf and the quality of our courses. I don't play anymore, i used to. Given my ability (or lack thereof), our courses were fine. If i wanted a more challenging course, i left the community. Our courses were never going to be spectacular. Our most redeeming factor was quantity, not quality. It still is today. The luxury of playing a different course every day of the week is unique especially when you factor in, you can drive your own golf car to every course and all within 15 or 20 minutes of your home.

The one poster most vocal about the conditions took lots of flack for speaking out. As i tried to explain to people (in the limited space available), last years number of rounds of play was off the charts. I thought i saw a RCSC golf report they reached the 350,00 rounds of play number. Their norm has been about 300,00. We know golf falls off in the summer months, so much of those increases in rounds are during the peak season (taking out the three very hottest months of summer).

That amount of increased play during the season stresses the courses. It's no one's fault, it's just the constant where and tear. They weren't meant to handle that much play. Which brings me back full circle to my argument; when you give rounds away for too little money, you increase play and stress the courses. Guys playing 300 hundred rounds of golf a year at the full play rate of $1500 (or is it $1550) end up paying a little over $5 a round. If they fall off to just 250 rounds, its $7 and change. You cannot make ends meet when it is that cheap, and worse yet you encourage golfers to buy the passes which makes it even worse.

It would be both interesting and beneficial to see breakouts on the raw utilization data regarding play, especially for board members. It would also help if the board set a subsidized limit on golf so there were some perimeters. Without them, golf just becomes a bottomless pit where money/cost doesn't matter. We no longer have that luxury. Yesterday's news is just that, it is tomorrow's i am focused on. We know there are significant issues facing Sun City and the board. Starting with good solid information would be a great first step.

 

FWIW, I can't speak for the auto lifts, but I know for a fact the kilns used in one of the clay clubs have been paid for by the club (using funds they've had to earn selling crafts, holding fund raisers, and club dues). In fact, at one time they even had to buy the paper towels for the dispensers placed by the sinks in the club room (I don't know if that's still true, btw). I suspect the metal club and wood shops have had to pay for much if not all of their equipment also. The RCSC takes ownership of the equipment when it's delivered, but the club is responsible for maintenance costs.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I'd say. If you don't golf you see the tens of millions of dollars poured into golf as wasteful; if you don't use the pools you may see them negatively too, or at least not very positive. The RCSC has invested a bit of money into pickle-ball lately -- many of us hobble with canes or use walkers so it's wasted money for us. The reality is there are thousands of people living in SC who use absolutely NONE of the RCSC's amenities, and thousands more who only use a minimal amount. They live here because of cheap housing/taxes, the quiet, and safe neighborhoods. Houses sell quickly in SC -- but the same is true outside the walls, too.

 

An opportunity to EDUCATE.

 

Interesting footnote to IC comments, when Sun City opened in 1960, there was no facilities agreement in place. Membership was voluntary and a good share of those buying in "New Life One" elected not to join. By years end in 1960, Community Center (Oakmont) was struggling to make ends meet. With exploding sales and the second rec center planned Town Hall (Fairway), the Del E Webb Corporation (DEVCO) made a swift and fundamentally sound decision. Every house sold in and around the new center came with a facilities agreement. They weren't about to repeat that mistake.

Oddly, the ability to forgo mandatory membership in the New Life One unit stayed that way until 1967. The company helped Community Center get by, but it also added an amount of angst within the community. Those "belonging" to the first rec center weren't allowed to use the newer, nicer Town Hall (except on rare occasions). It was dubbed the "mini-Berlin wall by John Meeker and was divisive for the community as a whole.

When the company began plans for Town Hall South (Mountainview) and with the Community rec center aging and needing work, a vote was held for New Life One residents to accept signing a facilities agreement in exchange for the right to use any center and some upgrades on their center. The vote was close, but enough people voted for it. While some lament the concept of everyone paying their fair share whether they used the amenities or not, it became the defining difference in the Sun City's success.

Over the years there's been an insignificant drumbeat to charge the users and let others off the hook. The pay to play idea has never gone anywhere because with our tax status, age overlay and the remarkable concept of volunteerism, owning here and paying the RCSC fees was as IC pointed out, usually cheaper than living anywhere else around us. My dearly departed mother used to whine about having to pay rec fees when she never used anything and i said i would be happy to sell her place and move her to El Mirage where she wouldn't have the yearly RCSC fees. While it sounds cruel, she stopped the whining immediately.

BTW. she was one of the ones impacted by the GM convincing the board the grandfathering of residents done in 2003 wasn't applicable once she moved. Oddly, i found RCSC documentation a year ago clearly stating the grandfathered clause stayed even if you sold and moved to another location.

 

Good points IC. I should have used common access areas like (as you suggest) pools and sport courts. I believe if a Member asks pools expenditures for a given year, they should get a straight answer. What is so infuriating is when Bill asks the Board if they know golf is supposed to be self-sustaining and asks them how much golf is costing, he gets stoned faced silence. That ain't right. I give them a pass if they don't know the answer off the top of their heads, but by-god, they should find out the answer and respond honestly. I think the big-ticket costs, like golf, pools, and the $27 million we're about to spend to build a theater and basketball court (which correctly and acceptably will also only be used by a minuscule percentage) should be transparent and open for debate/discussion. I'm tasking the Board to get honest numbers out in front of people and ask: Do we spend 25 million on subsidizing golf, or do we build an esports arena, or do we (insert a new idea here)???

 

YES! You are the first, that I am aware of, to bring up e-sports!! It is a big part of student life at every university and with young professionals, who will retire one day. THIS is Long Range planning, not just playing catch-up!

 

lol - actually, I heard Kat talking about it during the campaign. It was pretty funny after she brought it up she looked around and said something like "I'm sure a lot of you don't even know what that is". YES! Actual Long Range Planning based on current and potential residents!

 

Therein is the rub for all of us sitting in the audience jeb, the board knows virtually nothing about what anything costs. In fact, the common refrain is, what's the difference as long as there is money in the bank at the end of the year. It's became so insidious that in both 2020 and 2021, when a board member had the nerve to question expenditures, they were fired for asking (just one man's opinion BTW).

If you think that mindset has changed, go back and watch some of the video's of recent board meetings. The general manager has become frustrated by questions asked regarding financials and the board president has told the board member to go ask the gm away from the board meeting. It is painfully obvious to the casual observer there are questions asked by some board members they want answered in private, not in front of the membership.

I've written this a lot since the meetings changed several years back; it is my opinion, the board should go back to the old work session format, but do it in front of the membership and recorded for those who want to watch it. I know there has been whining about not having work sessions, i would hate to see them held behind closed doors. It sends the wrong kind of message.

Finally, i would hope, for the sake of the community, data, information requested by board members to make sound decisions is freely shared between all board members. For some reason, the past couple of years the board's officers had been in the loop where non-officers were left out. That should NEVER happen.

 

Seems you missed this thread so i thought i'd put it right out there for you. Take a look at all those years you were there and do the math. Golf was heavily subsidized. Where were you protecting the community from that happening. You had no qualms about firing Karen for a conflict of interest. Was there a bigger conflict than golfing board members subsidizing golf when the courses were purchased to be self-sustaining? Have you even read the documents regarding the purchase?