Something to think about...

The question before any of us, at least the membership of the RCSC, should be this: Does Sun City and its amazing amenity package (that we all have paid for), exist for those living outside the walls, or those of us inside the walls? The fact there are still 144 non-resident full play passes (according to their handout the other day at the meeting) set my blood boiling (yet again). This entire fiasco started more than a year ago and the only thing that has happened is the passes have gotten more expensive. They still take members prime time tee times.

Now we are seeing the same thing in bowling. Lines are way up and here's why: We are giving line play away at a fraction of what it costs outside Sun City. Guess what happens when you price something a third less than what it would cost you anywhere else in the West Valley? Sorry, but that's not why we exist. I have been told (no idea if it is true) that within 5 years the equipment at Lakeview will need to be replaced at the cost of 5 million dollars. Who do you think will be asked to pay for that, the bowler living in Peoria or all of the RCSC members?

I don't know if you watched or attended the video of the last board meeting Larry, but what we heard from Brian was disturbing beyond belief. The cost of converting to desert landscaping has tripled since the PIF budget forecast two years ago. The South course alone was estimated to be around 8 million dollars. With the increase it is now closer to 20 million dollars or more. They are playing around with some variations of grass needing less water (a good thing) but ultimately our costs will be exploding.

So we are really clear, golf will never be profitable. The numbers are always hard to read because the PIF expenditures are rolled into long term depreciation costs. Honestly Larry, the cost side is the least of our worries right now. We need to get rid of the carpet baggers coming from outside taking our tee times that belong to the members.

 

You’re preaching to the choir about that subject. We need to see long range plans for each course and cost to accommodate the necessary changes. And then the golf board needs to come up with realistic cost structures for outside play. Presently, an annual player playing once a week covers his cost for a year. So he plays for free every additional round he plays. Lazing planning by the golf board and general manager.

 

Perhaps a surcharge is in order. $5 for members and $10 for non-members - per 9 holes.

 

Before that, let’s determine the actual annual costs of all facilities. For some reason that is totally unknown to me, people keep talking about golf not be profitable, including Bill by the way. I think that is a given, but keep in mind that there is no activity or facility in Sun City that is profitable. Let’s determine how much money each facility and/or activity actually costs and go from there. That information is available, but nobody seems to know it or furnish it.

 

This board is hands-on and will supply those figures with some background information and costs. They aren't going to wait around for anyone to give them answers they'll do it themselves.

 

Yesterday i wrote out the long form story of the history of the RCSC that will appear as an exhibit at the Museum. Damn, way too long and lots of cutting to do, but that's not germane to Larry's comment. The simple reality is this: Every recreation center was deeded to the residents with no caveats, restrictions or conditions. The golf courses were sold to the RCSC for $10 and a cup of coffee and the obligation for them to be run revenue neutral. So much so the agreement calls for 50% of the costs maintaining the lakes to be billed back to golf (to my knowledge that's never happened btw).

I'm told the 10 pin bowling centers (2) were done in the same manner. I've never seen the agreement. Frankly, it's a tired argument because realistically golf will never be self-supporting. Especially when you consider what is coming at us in the 5th water management plan. We are going to be dumping boatloads of money from PIF into the courses to try and meet the demands of the state. We have little choice in the matter. What we do have the choice/obligation to do is insure non-residents aren't benefiting from our investment.

What i continue to harp about, first and foremost, is how management has made every decision on how much to charge and how to allocate tee times. They need to get rid of non-resident full play passes. They need to stop allowing those outsiders from taking our tee times. Then they need to be realistic about the money it takes to run the courses and how they can come close to covering said costs. We know the daily play resident/member golfers have seen their rates increase by a $1 each year because of inflation. We also know the full play pass sales has increased in number yet have seen no increase since 2017. Does that make any sense at all?

As i have written too many times; i have no interest in being the arbiter in what is fair or reasonable regarding golf rates. There's an entire golfing community out there who should be involved and committed to finding solutions. Golf will only continue to get more expensive with each passing day. Worse yet, the pandemic bump we saw will be hitting us and the idea we can solve our problems with cheap golf and measuring success by rounds played is yesterday's news. It simply won't work.

Sun City was built as a golfing community and will always be a golfing community. The real question is this: At what cost?

 

Hey Mj, welcome They are far more hands-on and less willing to just accept every decision the GM makes. That's a good thing. To both your point and Larry's above, we should see related costs for centers and activities. It would seem to me the only way to make sound choices going forward is by using data and not just knee-jerk reactions to 50 members showing up to bitch about their pet project.

We've seen good first steps as both the working group that came from the ASU survey and now the the Mountain View project review has been member intensive/inclusive. Spending money foolishly is nonsense. Every project should be steeped in logic that can easily be articulated and better yet, openly presented so anyone interested can make sense of it. The days of burying costs hopefully is well past. I would love to see the new RCSC website have a PIF page filled with both photos of projects and the associated costs to do them. Simple enough, if you ask me.

 

I'm not sure this exact topic was covered in the ASU session, but we've danced around the issue, and it revolves around facilities utilization. It is paramount that we (Board and residents) know real utilization numbers of ALL of our facilities and make decisions based on all available data, as well as expert outside advice on future needs of 55+ communities as we look to spend resources.

I have been questioning for some time the need for 8 centers and 8 golf courses, plus 3 private courses in a community this size. RCSC is theoretically a gigantic parks and recreation department when you boil it down. It doesn't have any other governing authority. I'm not trying to be unkind, but a $25 - 27 million budget is pretty hefty for community of roughly 36,000, give or take, with a pretty significant portion of the population seasonal residents.

Don't get me wrong- I LOVE SUN CITY. But, when does the proverbial rubber meet the road? How realistic are we being to think or believe that all of this can continue forever? Maybe it can, but every Center can't replicate the other? It would be nice in a perfect world, but we're not living in a perfect world. This the real, with finite resources.

I shudder to think what the costs associated with just our golf courses will be in the coming years, let alone the 8 brick and mortar centers and other buildings. We are going to likely "pay dearly" for the years of low assessments to keep up. Then wait for the outcry.

This is one reason why the SAC process on MV is so important at this moment. I hope the members can dig deep and get all of the information we deserve; the community requires full transparency at every level of this project. This Board has an incredibly full plate with conflicting priorities, but I am confident they understand how important these decisions are. It's up to all of us to stay engaged, ask questions, and be informed.

 

Odd, after 20 years, i've never questioned if we have too many amenities, in fact, i've argued we have too few. It's why i lusted after the Lakes Club. Instead we threw money at golf courses in hopes of it somehow being our salvation. Golf had been trending down for years, but the GM and the board member/golfers cared not. There's no question the pandemic bump helped us, but will it last? The reality of where we are with golf is massive increases for converting to desert landscaping or some hybrid of less watered grass will only doom us further.

I know there are those who think there is an inherent right to cheap golf. They think it is unfair they have to pay for golf while other amenities get a free ride. I can't help the way DEVCO deeded the centers to us while they sold us golf courses and the bowling alleys with the stipulations they remain revenue neutral. I know there are those out there who argue that's not what the agreements say. Most of them have never seen them and even when they do they make some nonsensical argument based on what they want...cheap golf and their friends living outside the walls to play with them at reduced rates.

But my response has nothing to do with golf. Not even close. This is about what is missing in Sun City. My old friend Norm Dickson has lobbied for years that each center has its own unique quality. Most of the centers were built so they had something for everyone. Most tried to do too much in too little a space. The idea someone had to drive 4 miles to get to a center was foreign to many, most often they wanted it across the street from them.

I would argue, that idea is antiquated and dated. I'm more buying into Norm's vision of each center serving specific purposes. That doesn't make it right, it's just the way i am leaning right now. The real tragedy is, we took the membership out of the equation over the years, so who really knows what those members would have wanted? What is so terribly frustrating is we had the mechanism to facilitate those choices and we dismantled it.

In retrospect, did it make any sense?

 

Bill, I'm glad you brought up the Lakes Club. If only! As you have described it, I think that purchase may have solved some of the issues we face today! The amount of space, the location, the opportunities it would have afforded us - the list of "if only's" is long.

I'm torn about the idea if we have too many facilities, but I think it's a legitimate question and it's sometimes the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. The costs in both financial and human resources are high. Realistically, what are we willing to spend? How fast and how high will the PIF need to go? I don't know. Will it matter? Maybe looking at historical sales data to analyze the ups and downs over a a 30-40 year period would help. That would show us various economic highs and lows affecting housing, etc., generational shifts. Anyone have that?

For sake of discussion, I don't think we can ignore the annual assessment when it comes to maintaing all of these properties. Costs are going to continue to rise. It's obvious we are going to be playing catch up for a VERY long time. Technology alone is a deep, dark hole. Long neglected maintenance issues must be addressed. Club issues can't be overlooked or ignored if we want clubs to be a part of a healthy and vibrant community - we expect Clubs to adhere to RCSC rules; RCSC has responsibility as well. There are maintenance issues in plain site, and then there are big ticket items we don't see. Some issues may have been put off due to cost, lack of urgency, supply chain, or the wheel wasn't squeaky enough? Whatever the issue, the list is long, costly and it's not clear how or when we will catch up. I'm not clear that we have the human resources to do everything or the financial resources to hire outside contractors.

The Finance Committee will be presenting its report on capital reserves this fall. That report should provide a more clear picture of our short and long term needs for capital expenditures and provide some much needed guidance for future financial needs. It's a step in the right direction. This exercise requires a deep dive to look at all of our physical assets and also provides a reality check on today's costs to maintain them. Building in inflationary costs will be important moving forward. This exercise is long overdue IMO.

This is a tough topic. Probably not very popular, but needs some discussion or exploration. We are blessed by having so much, but we need to manage it, care for it and honor the Del Webb legacy by keeping the original Sun City amenities in the very best possible condition that we possibly can.

"Quality over Quantity" will still make the original Sun City continue to stand out!

Just one woman's opinion!

 

Bill, I will keep this short and try my best to write so it'll be understood.
I agree first off that outsiders should be paying more.
I keep reading by many here about doing away with outside anything (pickleball, golf, bowling, softball, let's include lawn bowling, and any clubs musical or entertainment permanently). The post that I removed stated "that when we do this, our assessment must be raised to $3500 per household and this will stop the whining. I have no problem paying this as my days are pretty much done.
The great thing about doing this is that it will bring into Sun City wealthy residents who will have no problem paying for what they want. It will also make Sun City a more vibrant place to live. This will attract businesses other than flea markets to Sun City. Cook needs to put the hammer down and make this happen. Talk about cheap, we have not been paying our fair share. Time for the negative folks and newbies to open up their purses and start paying.

 

Yikes! The reason Sun City was established the way it was, and the reason it was, was to accommodate the average man/woman who worked all his/her life with a modest income.

Sun City welcomes everybody to become a Member no matter their financial status.

If you want to pay $3500 dollars a year then go move to Scottsdale...and good riddance!!!

 

I agree an assessment increase is desperately needed to accomplish goals in a more acceptable amount of time. Lack of staff and stalled decision making so projects can commence is a downer. I suspect this may be a reason why the rec centers wanted control in the past. As a resident I'm disappointed in how long it takes to do almost anything. I don't believe the rec fee needs to be exorbitant but a few hundred dollars more a year is needed to get us even a little farther in this day and age. Someone needs to see if people are choosing other communities over SC regardless of the cost because they have the finances to move forward faster. The complaints about quality and resources will only continue without more money.

 

If the GM sits on the money instead of making necessary repairs and improvements, raising the annual assessment doesn’t do anything other than increase the bank account. Look at the carryover from previous years but GM demanded an increase this year. It’s time for full disclosure

 

Please read my post in TOSC, under "Devil's Advocate" started by Bill. I have tried to describe a way to gain access to additional funds without raising the PIF or lot assessments. I have seen it work well in other organizations.

 

This was kind of lost in the shuffle and while SW may not like my answer, oh well. Our history is critical to this discussion. Sun City was built for low to moderate income retirees. It was marketed to those of average means. Even after Meeker came in 1965, he always was conscious of remaining affordable. The most interesting aspect of those early years was this: Sun City attracted some really wealthy retirees. Seems both the rich and the not-so-rich loved a bargain.

Going forward, we need to stay affordable. I would argue the past 15 years we tried to do just that and it came at a grave expense to our future. The day we took the membership out of the equation and let a small handful of board members embrace the vision of the GM, we were lost. There was nothing sinister or evil about her direction, she simply had a point of view that ignored the majority and took us where she thought we should be.

This isn't a new argument for me and honestly it's one i have admitted to failing at stopping her. She simply had too much control once the checks and balances were gone. Think not? With community involvement, our technology wouldn't be where it is today. The theater would have been built and we wouldn't be fighting over MV. We could be focusing on a complete renovation at Lakeview with honest and open discussions about what legitimate community needs are. Too many look only at what they want, not what the community needs.

We are on the road back and it will be a long slow slog. There's no way to do it quickly, that's not how organizational structure works. Sadly, too many don't understand that and have high expectations for a quick turn around. The good news is we are headed in the right direction.

 

.....