Are You a RCSC Member First?

I am an RCSC member first!

This post is long overdue, as we have repeatedly seen commentary regarding apathy by RCSC members or, the whole recent surge of the "what's in it for me mindset?" Both have taken front and center positions with the at least a couple of committees revealing the shortcomings of self-governance.

As i wrote somewhere along the way recently; self-governance is messy. This year has proved telling, as RCSC board members who were elected in 2023, and held the majority position, should have had their stuff together more. One would have assumed their ascendance to power would work more cohesively. It didn't.

But alas, power grabs aren't all that uncommon in organizational structure. Those lusting after it, tend to be more zealots than those who simply want shared responsibilities with their other 8 board members. It gets even more dicey when theoretically the mantra includes that concept/belief members should have a voice in the direction and outcomes. Do they believe what they are saying, or is it simply for manipulation purposes?

Lest i cast aspersions on anyone, my goal is to try and stay positive and focused here. As i wrote a good friend this morning, no matter what happens in this year's RCSC election, Sun City will survive; maybe for the better, perhaps for the worse.

With that out of the way, let's dig a little deeper. The ad hoc Strategic Alternatives Committee (SAC) has been a fascinating experience to watch. I've been in the room for the later meetings and watched the earlier ones as they were recorded and posted online. Lots of great ideas coupled with huge expectations and more than a fair share of those wanting what they wanted.

The art of compromise has always worked when those in the room are actually willing to compromise. It worked really good once the architect was brought in who had no skin in the game and just wanted to get those that did to drill down to the must have items. Lord knows, Mountain View needs to be fixed.

Unfortunately, along the way, it appears as if some goal posts were moved and at least one or two board members had ulterior motives. Part of it wasn't known until near the end of the process when pickleball decided they needed an indoor venue,. Then rumors (they weren't just rumors by the way) circulated through the committee that there was serious consideration to cap the Mountain View project at 10 million dollars and use the remainder for golf course improvements.

The problems that have unfolded are obvious to anyone who has sat in the room at the Grand Center, or watched the meetings online. There is clearly an amount of distrust and angst present. Frankly it's human nature to want what we want and then to perceive others being wrong with their ideas and thinking.

A couple of classic examples: A indoor pickeball venue would be awesome for both players and marketing purposes. The questions are simple: Can we afford it? Is it even practical considering the cost to build and run it on such a tight footprint (6.5 acre parcel at MV)? What would we have to lose there to build it?

I know the answer to part of the equation, while it's been muddied by the motion the committee brought forward at the Town Hall session. There were three counter-proposals made to the one passed and shaped by the architect and Plan B was the least doable...and the one the committee voted to move forward with. I would argue it was done for less than honorable purposes, but who cares what i think?

Plan C would have fit within the budget and would have been the one that accomplished the most desirable outcome for the largest number of members. The losers would have been the lawn bowlers from Mountain View who would have been asked to move to Fairway. That green, as it currently sits, is barely used. The artificial carpet needs to be replaced, something that was put in the budget in 2019/2020.

There was no give, as lawn bowlers argued they couldn't lose a green. Really? It's always the height of hypocrisy to tell everyone they need to compromise, and then tell those same folks; "ya but not us."

Boards, committees and management are all in tough positions. Members want what they want and they tend to look inward rather than outward. The Sun City way of life has always been a challenging balancing act, as members have been vying for their pet projects year in and year out.

Sadly, one of the worst possible outcomes for Sun City is when we elect candidates who are single issue focused. It's happened several times over the years; i suspect it will happen again. In fact, it might happen in the current election being held.

We have one candidate who hasn't bothered to show up for much of anything, and another who thinks all the meetings should be moved to the afternoon or evenings so it doesn't interfere with his 5 times a week golf games. Yet, the Sun City golf associations blasted out emails telling their members to vote for them so golfers can control what the board does next year.

I'm sorry, but anyone who is a single issue candidate shouldn't be elected to the board. It's this simple for me; I AM AN RCSC MEMBER FIRST, NOT SOMEBODY WHO THINKS WHAT I DO (IN MY CASE LAWN BOWLING) IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOES ON IN THE COMMUNITY I/WE LOVE.

 

And kudo's to you Bill for understanding and setting your priorities!

Some like to talk "compromise" but fail to do so!

So....let me see if I've got this right; we have 5 locations for Lawn Bowling, with 7 Courts, and 5 Lawn Bowling Clubs all with less than 360 total members, but some refuse to give up the one court at Mountain View????

Yeah, that sounds like "compromise" to me! NOT!

 

I see how much maintenance and fertilizer and water go into keeping these nice. And then think that they can only be used three times a week. It seems like something we should be taking a hard look at.

 

You are getting a taste of the flavor that has become Sun City. I'm not at all surprised since this happens often in my club and others. The culture here or anywhere is not the same as it was in the 1960s. Let's hope entitlement does not prevail in this situation. There is no justifying a pickle ball Taj Mahal in this community but adding a few more courts is unacceptable to them. It's very simple we get what we pay for and there's only so much to go around.

 

I too believe plan C is best way to go if more space is needed for pb and/or parking.

Marlene has implied with her plan that she can get 17 pb courts on the MV site without eliminating lawn bowling. Also with her plan Marlene can design area so later a climate controlled indoor pb facility could be added. Why not build that structure now enclosing 8 of the courts? Leave 9 courts for outdoors.

Money for this might be possible by spending more of the $31 million PIF. Also could tone down the PAC, fitness center, and pool area. Seems simple to me!

 

PARKING...PARKING...PARKING

 

Parking works with 8 indoor pickleball courts, if the information we are working with from Maricopa co. Is accurate.

 

See above. I’ve got to trust what I heard the architect say.

 

What plan works best for you Paul?

 

I believe you you need 1 parking space for every 200 square foot plus a certain additional percentage for handicap.

8 enclosed Pickleball courts approximately covering 20,000-25,000 square foot needs an approximate additional 100-125 parking spaces. So as long as there are currently more parking spaces at MV than were required for its existing square footage you're good.

But don't forget Marlene intends to increase the square footage of the existing theater as well!

 

Okay, if plan M doesn’t work default to plan C. Move lawn bowling to another location or eliminate it all together.
What works for you FYI?

 

Tone down theater, fitness center, and pool area.

 

I have no objection to closing in 8 Pickleball courts.

I would rather to have seen the plan occupy the space of the Lawn Bowling court rather than taking away the tennis courts. At least the tennis representative was willing to "compromise" when he agreed to move them to LakeView!!!

And yes, perhaps tone down the fitness center and pool area!

Like I have stated before, I think Mountain View should be renovated in moderation considering Fairway is so close and we have already expanded our assets with the Grand Center and Vintage Vehicle building and the new proposed structure/broadcast booth for the Softball Club. I believe there also are plans for new maintenance buildings at some of the other golf courses?

We can't just keep building expensive rec centers and increasing our costs when our community only has a finite number of community Members. The only way our annual income increases is if they increase our assessments.

Like I said in another thread; we don't need to build a Cadillac if a Chevy will do. I don't want to deprive anybody of anything but just trying to think about the future sustainability of Sun City and all her assets. People are already bitching about some of pool decking, and don't forget about the lawn chairs at Marinette! Seems like we're already falling behind?

Looking forward to seeing a 5 year budgetary plan and how we're going to get ourselves out the mess we're currently in! Hopefully we only have to go thru 2 or 3 slim years before we get ourselves back on track.

Just one man's opinion!

 

Tom, So you seem to think that money should be diverted from the theater, fitness center and pool area to fund your favorite amenity - an enclosed pickleball court? I am all for more pickleball courts but the only number of players I have heard mentioned are 1,100+ that belong to the pickleball club. I don't think the other Members who are not pickleball players should give up part of their amenities for just over 1,000 people. The MV pool is a favorite of many in Sun City. I frequent Fairway Rec Center's fitness center and it is already pretty crowded and may not be able to absorb more from MV. Plus the performing arts groups have waited, and waited, and waited.......Perhaps the pickleball club should be told to wait as long as the performing arts groups and the softball club have waited. Sorry, but sometimes everyone needs to wait their turn.

 

Pickleball definitely not my favorite amenity. Injury waiting to happen for me.(playing pb that is) I’ve just been looking for solution to the pb vrs. PAC question. I believe they can coexist at MV, especially if an indoor pb structure is built. Popularity of pb is real and continues to grow. Gotta face reality on this popularity. No real firm plans have been developed yet. I thought you have been paying attention to my ideas on the MV project. I always search for a win-win solution. How bout you Janet? What is your ideal solution?

 

I have been following the discussions on MV. I have watched the Board meetings and Exchanges and the Town Hall when I am out of town. Almost always attend meetings when I am in Sun City. Tried watching some of the SAC meetings, but it was hard to hear some people and to follow.

My dream was to have a wonderful PAC at Lakeview but time and money doesn't allow that now. For now, I agree that pb and the PAC will need to coexist at MV. I think it is unfortunate that RCSC and the Foundation haven't been more proactive in finding outside funding for a PAC and other endeavors. The National Endowment for the Arts gives large grants to cities, schools, colleges, and nonprofits for funding theaters and art galleries. Why not Sun City? Arizona has its own arts endowment as well. Plus there are so many sources for outside funding. Last April I made an appointment to meet with GM Bill Cook to discuss this. He just set up roadblocks for all of my suggestions. Perhaps the new GM has more experience in this area. I explained to Mr. Cook that the largest transfer of wealth in our country has started and will continue for the next 40 years. Yes, we Baby Boomers have worked hard, saved and acquired assets. As we leave this earth, there is enormous potential for our generation to leave a legacy of giving. If we each would contribute 5% of our net worth to charities, it would be transformational to the communities we care so much about. That is not taking money from our children. It's a worthy, tax smart endeavor to see our hard earned money go where we choose. I think RCSC should jump on this idea and make long term commitments to potentially securing some outside funding. Perhaps the next generation of Sun Citians can have a state of the art PAC if we plan carefully.

I think lawn bowling could be eliminated at MV for extra space to add pb courts. After all there are two other lawn bowling sites in Phase 1 - one at Fairview (that will probably need to be replaced) and the original one at Oakmont. Plus Lakeview's two courts aren't that far away. As I have said, I frequent the Fairway Center for fitness, swimming, and the library. I have rarely seen any lawn bowlers playing there.

The first figure I heard for an indoor pickleball facility at MV was $25M. I think I heard $10M from a speaker at the Town Hall. Big difference! However, Plan B doesn't have projections for cost so who knows what it will cost. I just don't want the groups who will use and attend the PAC, swimming pools, and fitness center to have to take a back seat to pickle ball. Also, I don't think it is the mission of RCSC to provide facilities for "world class" tournaments. We don't do it for golf or swimming, although our facilities are adequate for the types of outside events that are held.

BTW, I am a golfer but I do not think RCSC Members have been paying enough for the maintenance of the courses. That is too bad considering the money that will need to be spent for water reduction. Some of the money already spent on golf courses and buildings could have been used for MV before now. A $4M golf maintenance building? I attended the open house when it was opened and couldn't believe it cost that much to build. We should be spending money for Members, not outdated equipment.

Tom, I hope this helps understanding my thinking.

 

Thanks for your ideas Janet. I agree with many of them. I believe the board and SAC need to focus in on the MV project and make a decision. I sense that they are getting there.

 

If you think $4 million was too much for the maintenance building, wait until the actual cost for MV hits, regardless of which option is selected. I totally agree that additional funding should be pursued for the theater and again, keep in mind that everytime you add something, you increase your maintenance costs and the only means of paying for that is by raising the assessment. It’s ironic how people complain about how there are only 4,000 golfers and the money spent there. We’ll the 1,000 pickleball players sure seem to be making plenty of demands for dollars also.

 

Are you an RCSC member first isn't a cutesy slogan; it's the ultimate question each of us has to ask ourselves. The problem is easy to identify if we say no, i want what i want because that's what matters...to me. Too many of us look at our own selfish best interests and think our needs/wants are more important than everyone/anyone else. Let's be honest here; it's not easy being objective.

It's one of the reasons i haven't bought into the indoor pickleball proposals. Having sat through more SAC meetings than i care to admit, when the goal posts moved from a total of 45 courts in Sun City to some kind of a mix that included indoor, my head started too spin. The only reason it warrants a second consideration is the noise that Mountain View will generate when we have a total of 20-25 more courts there.

The biggest concern for me with the performing arts theater (PAC) is the Players thinking it's their venue. I know they swear that won't happen. Whatever the ultimate cost is, the only way it works for me is if they can run 250 plus events through there a year. The two plays and 6-8 performances will be a minuscule piece of the PAC puzzle. Movies, guest lecturers, life long learning classes and all of the other musical and stage necessary groups absolutely have to be worked into keeping the schedule filled.

And as long as Larry brought up golf, here's my bottom line. I've long argued the golf advisory committee (GAC) should play an integral role is both price setting and tee time allocations. Unfortunately the small numbers of member/golfers buying the full play passes 9 less than 500) have dictated the outcomes that favored them alone. Even the surcharge buyers have been ignored as the small groups have taken members tee times as they set both the pricing and golf structure. It gets worse because they somehow justified non-residents as having access to RCSC members tee times. It's totally nuts.

Now they are trying to compound it by stacking the committee with golfers whose first (and in some cases) and only priority will be golf. They did that back when i was on the board and here we go again. We should not let it happen, it would be the RCSC moving backwards rather than forwards.