SAC:10/27/23.

Easy answer Paul: Money. It goes deeper though, we had no long range plan, ever. What we had was a meaningless PIF "budget" that was little more than a wild ass guess (WAG) by a couple of GM's who either had their own priorities or were pretty much clueless about Sun City and how it worked. The good news is it appears we are on the right path back. Between a new board and far smarted management, we can see a light at the end of the tunnel. It's just a way's off.

I know some get frustrated by how strongly i feel about things, sorry, but it's just my way. That said, i full well understand how Sun City works, and one man's opinion, is just that; one man's opinion. Most of what i say and write comes from a Sun City historical perspective. I'm not smarter than anyone else, i do know our history better than most.

It's this simple for me: The RCSC has a lot of assets and better yet a lot of revenue that has been and will be generated. We are finally looking at both the practical application of actually doing preventative maintenance, identifying our shortcomings and needs and looking towards the future. While some would argue we should do it all right now, that's not even feasible.

Moving forward will take a reasonable approach where we balance out catching up on past sins while looking forward to our needs, Sadly, wants tend to get in the way of needs. I'm both a realist and an optimist. The beauty of where we are is that both management and the board are in the process of building a 5 year and hopefully a 10 year plan. Everything we do should work in concert with what we hope to do. It seems like such a simple premise but clearly not one past boards or management ever grasp.

 

VIDEO Strategic Alternatives Committee Meeting October 27, 2023. Held at the Grand Recreation Center.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdLy0Uy9sKWCJNLz37tn5ug

 

I'll share my thoughts in the next day or two about the SAC meeting on 11/3. Suffice to say i was disappointed by some of the decisions.

 

This has to be brief, stuff to do today. Here's a quick overview of the 11/3 SAC meeting. Let me start by just saying kudos to all those who stepped up and participated. It is and was a noble effort and somewhere, somehow will eventually pan out. It was neither easy or small in the amount of time and energy that went into it. If there was a problem, it was from all of the differing points of view and ultimately the hardening of the arteries (minds) of some who refused to budge.

First off, the results from yesterday was putting forth a motion that passed in using the architect's (Marlene) proposal as a rough outline for the committee's recommendation. She did a yeoman's work in dragging it out of the committee and on it's face fits the budget (25-27 million dollars) and meets most of the needs committee members identified. If there is one glaring question mark, it's this: Does it make sense to spend 12 million dollars on a remodel of the existing auditorium structure? All of which spawns several other questions but i will spare you them here.

Second up was a three-pronged proposal that included multiple options which they called A, B and C. The agreement was to allow multiple options as long as they got the votes to move them forward. I watched in stunned silence as they were presented. Option A took away the performing arts theater (PAC) and said it should go elsewhere; Lakeview was the most favored choice for those who wanted Mountain View to house an indoor pickleball venue. In fact all three of these options included that. That vote failed.

Next up was B. Yikes. My brain was working in overdrive as i am pretty well versed in both projected costs and square footage requirement that ultimately drives county code parking spaces. Obviously committee members not so much or they simply don't care. The option included renovations at the auditorium for PAC (pick a number, 12 million or something less), 15 indoor pickleball courts (roughly 50,000 sq feet under roof and 25 million dollars), and pool and spa renovations along with 15,000 sq feet for changing rooms and fitness center (two stories but still another 7.5 million dollars and 15,000 square feet). Let's not forget the renovation for mini-golf.

The total costs were somewhere in the 45-50 million dollar range and roughly 75,000 indoor space. That would result in more than 350 parking spaces (by county code) and there are currently less than 250 spaces currently on site. I won't belabor this as i am running out of time. THAT ONE PASSED. HUH?

I'll be back later with option C, which oddly enough was the only one (other than Marlene's) that potentially would have, could have fit the 6.5 acre footprint and been close cost wise.

Stay tuned.

 

Hmm, we are back above $40M now and too much on the site. If that is the case, let's move the PAC to another venue (Lakeview or Bell Rec Center parking lot) and spend the money there! Sounds like a gym is out of the plans? Will lawn bowling at MV be eliminated and the one at Fairview be redone? I will have to watch the video but too much football to watch today! LOL

It appears that the single biggest cost to the project is the indoor pickleball courts. Just like we complain about the Members who don't golf paying for the golf courses, now we have the nonpickleball players subsidizing those 1.000+ players. I realize the maintenance costs are much lower for pickleball, but $25 M is a huge cost up front. I would rather spend $25 M on a fine PAC that broadens the scope of RCSC's offerings.

 

It’s high time these folks quit dreaming and get back to reality. Ignoring zoning requirements and thinking that the county will give us exemptions is ridiculous. And even more ridiculous is the price tag. A total wasted effort. Money is an issue people.

 

Larry, you're right. They are not listening. The parking issues have been thoroughly explained multiple times. Some committee members just refuse to accept budget numbers, future cash flow projections and they aren't hearing the dollar numbers associated with future needs. BUT, the committee gave the Board (and the members) alternatives. This month will be interesting.

 

Plan M(the architects) is 1 of 2 plans being presented at the townhalls. Parking is okay for this plan, so the architect has stated. The plan is budgeted at about $25 million though more study is needed.

Plan B to be presented is probably not well thought out in terms of budget and parking. Unless someone is going to pull a rabbit out of a hat.

 

Linda could you tell me where I might find all the financial info you mentioned? The budget $ finance committee has not posted any minutes for quite some time.

 

Tom, have you seen the budget presentation power point that is on the website? It's under board and committee reports. The most recent minutes/summaries are in progress, and the ones approved last week should be posted soon. The line item budget has not been posted (which has been past practice). However, the PP was a pretty comprehensive overview. It's operations only - does not include PIF.

 

Have browsed 2023 and 2024 budgets. Really want to see in print future projections, etc. Nothing seems current which makes planning difficult.

 

The next step for B&F will be a 5 year rolling budget plan: we are continuing to meet every two weeks (roughly) in to the new year. Joint meetings with LRP are planned as well. There are a lot of moving parts for sure. Honestly, if time permitted on everyone's schedules, we could probably meet weekly - there's that much planning and communication that needs to take place. But, it's not possible to fix everything in several months that took years to unravel. I hope the Town Halls are productive; my concern is that each topic should have had its own TH and then maybe a general TH at the end. Will see how it goes. We definitely need to make every attempt to improve communication and inform the members. This also includes providing committee information on the website.

 

Dang, my bad, yesterday took longer than anticipated and when i finally got home i wasn't in the mood to write. I've been sleeping really good at night, gotta love having the windows open and a slight chill in the air, but alas, by 6 am this morning i was already on my third cup of coffee. Some nights i find myself antsy and thee need to vent.

Friday's SAC meeting was the source for my consternation. I had no interest in being on the committee, but a keen sense of following how the concept of self-governance would work in group with such diverse ideas and opinions. Watching it unfold brought forth both joy and pain. The process has enormous potential and upside, but it is also fraught with pitfalls and agendas that aren't always readily apparent.

While some would argue, i've always regarded myself as a "glass-half-full guy" as opposed to "half-empty." I want to believe everyone comes in pure of heart and with the best of intentions. Lest it sound like i am casting aspersions, i'm not. In fact, for the most part the committee made significant changes to get to the motion that was passed in the first vote on Friday. I know for some, that proposal was far more than they wanted and for some far less.

Marlene (the architect who came in late) had done a remarkable job of reaching a consensus by insisting on compromise. Oddly, there were a handful of things on the table where compromise wasn't even considered. I was in an ugly position watching this because i know and understand the data better than some. It's why at the SAC meeting on Friday Oct 30 i finally spoke up and out (when allowed).

So we are really clear, i am an avid lawn bowler and have been for almost 20 years. At one point it was my passion. Not so much any more but i am still involved. My frustration from sitting in the SAC sessions was this idea that lawn bowling couldn't give up a green. Our numbers of bowlers are down and losing one to make additional space was a reasonable suggestion that had been shot down because we needed to keep all 7 greens. I knew that was outright bullshit.

When i said that on Oct 30th, i suspected there would be push back; i wasn't disappointed. At Friday's meeting two of the presidents of lawn bowling clubs showed up. Only one spoke out and he happens to be the president of both the Mountain View club and the Fairway club. MV gets a lot of use. The players there are more social bowlers and just have fun. The reverse is true at Fairway as it has an artificial surface that is lightening quick and social bowlers struggle with. They have for a very long time and that club has never drawn good numbers.

They had been asked to attend by another member of the committee who clearly has a problem with pickleball getting more than what she (and others) perceive to be their fair share of space. I found it ironic to be arguing with good friends of mine after the meeting, but as i tend to do, i was pretty blunt with them when i asked how they can justify 7 greens with the number of bowlers we have?

Their argument was this: it's because Mountain View is so popular. No disagreement there, but the Fairways club is 3/4 of a mile away and is a far nicer facility. The problem there is the artificial carpet there wore out 4 years ago and in fact has been in the budget to be replaced since 2020. My next question was even more on point: Which facility would you take if you had to decide one or the other. Fairway was the obvious answer, but the carpet would need to be replaced. As an aside, the pace can be set at a more appropriate speed for club bowlers.

All of which fits into the SAC meeting on the third. There were in fact three motions made following the approval of the architects approved motion. We know motion A had no PAC at MV and was all pretty much pickleball. We know plan B was approved and was off the charts from both pricing and fit...it simply won't work there. Plan C, which you haven't seen and won't see because it was voted down, was close in costs and fit. It included 8 indoor pb courts, the theater remodel, pool and spa redo, mini-golf fixed and some sort of fitness center upgrade. The downside was, lawn bowl would have to move to Fairway.

I sat stunned knowing the one proposal the counter-group was offering was the only one that would actually work on the site. It wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but with some tweaks, it was really solid. The problem was those who hate pickelball refused to budge because lawn bowling would lose a green. Come on...REALLY?

Look, i know, some think it's heresy to say anything negative about a sport or activity you love. We all want to protect the things we cherish, but as i have written numerous times, rigorous honesty is always preferable to blind adoration. I'll be vilified by some in the lawn bowling community, but what's right is right. Compromise only works when everyone has some stake in the meeting in the middle on challenges like the MV remodel.

 

I keep on thinking, and the more I hear about those meetings the more I believe I might be right; perhaps the committee would have been better off if it was comprised of Members who had no vested interest in Mountain View or its venues, but only had the best interest of the Sun City community at heart?

Here's what I keep thinking about; the revenue that sustains Sun City is primarily a fixed income. We get a certain amount of finite dollars from our annual assessments and we can pretty much guarantee a certain minimum amount from PIF. We know we don't really make any money off of golf and we are not a growing community with a growing tax base.

It seems like the only thing growing in Sun City is our assets but our income pretty much stays the same. We've grown when we purchased the property at Grand. We've grown when we built the Vintage Vehicle Facility, we're going to grow when the softball facilities is updated, and we're going to grow when we finally build a PAC.

Each facility requires maintenance, staff, utilities, etc. And as the cost of those requirements keeps on growing while our annual income base pretty much stays the same. And unless you want to continue to see your annual assessment substantially increase EVERY year, there's no way around it!

Look....I'm not trying to deprive anybody from anything, but lets think a little further into the future and stop looking at how we can grow Sun City, but rather how we can sustain Sun City.

With Fairway less than a mile away from Mountain View it doesn't make any sense to me to duplicate many of the same amenities. Besides, where do you suppose all those Mountain View participants will go for the 3 plus years that MV will be closed?

Just look at where we are right now! We're 20 million dollars behind in maintenance, we don't have enough staff to perform the maintenance, our salary base is so low we lose almost 50% of our employees every year.

You can always keep people happy if you keep on giving them stuff but that all comes with a price. Smarter heads need to prevail or else in the not too distant future Sun City will no longer be a desirable place to live. Our facilities will deteriorate while our assessments continue to increase.

You can call me what you wish, but this is how I see the future unless we really start thinking about the future.

This SAC committee reminds me of Veruca from Willy Wonka? "I want it now"

Of course this is just my opinion!

 

I thought plan C was good. It checked all the boxes. The presentation isnt as good, but we are volunteers, not paid architects. It's a shame it wont be shown and considered moving forward.
Paul

 

I said the same about a week ago. I wasn't happy when I saw who was going to be on the committee.
What's best for Sun City never seems to enter their minds.
Save the WOW factor for Lakeview!

 

Seems to me it can be mentioned as a possibility at townhalls. The committee and BOD should be listening. The votes on A,B,and C were all so close that none should be thrown to the side. My thought as to why plan B vote was 8-6 in favor was because voters believed there is no way it would be given serious consideration during next meetings.

One other thought is to insist that an indoor pb facility be included in Marlenes’ design for construction, as opposed to only planning for one. Enclose only the 7 existing courts and the ones obtained by converting tennis courts. Move the lawn bowling to another rec center if more parking is needed at MV. Also tone down the fitness center and PAC. As Marlene and others have often said, “nothing is final at this point”

 

Yes, if not enough money then don’t spend money. Also, do I hear “too many conflicts of interest” at work in these committee(s)?