Town Hall meeting 3 is in the books.

Three down, one to go. Surprisingly, the town hall meetings have been pretty straight-forward and amazingly well representative of members expectations. As i sat through most of the third one, i started framing comments i will make at the fourth and final one.

Last night may have been the most contentious, with several of the SAC members speaking out loudly about how the committee process has been compromised. I have to bite my tongue, as i probably know and understand more of the backroom games that have been played by some of those involved and was disappointed as they played out.

I won't belabor it here, but some of the committee members who were controlling the process were angry when things changed. As i have said and written, i have no skin in the game other than i want Mountain View fixed and that rec center to be all it can be...as long as we don't break the bank to get there.

So everyone gets where i am coming from, the committee (and this board), has committed to this very simple concept: Data matters and should be the criteria for the decisions the board ultimately makes. The good news is, from this process, i have seen first hand the best, most complete data in the 20 years we have lived here.

The problem was, data was being twisted and manipulated to reach outcomes that weren't or aren't warranted. Last night those accusations by SAC members had virtually nothing to do with data and were purely emotionally fueled. I get it, there are those that want what they want, data be damned.

Last night, one glaring problem/question was asked that needs an answer quickly. Most of the proposals (plans) include renovating the existing auditorium. When asked why a site evaluation hadn't been done on it, no one could answer that directly. Here's my take; it needs to be done now. There is an enormous difference between reconditioning that building and plowing it under and building new. We're talking night versus day and knowing answers to that question are the only way to move forward.

Urgency is important, but without knowing the answer to that single question, we are held hostage in being able to begin to plan any outcome. Come on guys, get that site evaluation done. Yes it will cost some money, but it's the key to everything we do.

 

What Is the Buildings Department saying? Surely there are steps to follow.

 

There is already a flooding problem at Mountain View and 107th. The county will probably want a piece of the 6.5 acres for retention. Then we go back to the drawing board and push it out 5 more years

 

Thanks for this info Bruce. Did you share that with the SAC?

 

A couple of days after the third town hall meeting, i've come to believe there are no answers yet as to what the final design will look like. There's lots of opinions, and even more comments regarding expectations, but i am convinced those who thought they knew where this project was going, are as befuddled as i am. That's not to say, there aren't those still wanting what they want; i just don't see a clear path for that to happen. There's way too many variables.

It's the beauty of the process' it should be complicated. Think about it this way: For the past 15 plus years we relied on a small group of board members and the GM to decide what was right for us. There's no question it was a cleaner, less complicated exercise, but did it produce the best results? I would argue not, but to do so, would dredge up the whole litany of shortcomings we are suffering through now. I'd prefer to look forward to the array of suggestions and then to allow the board, general manager and an architect go to work on what can actually fit on the site, and more importantly still fits in the budget.

The one unfortunate has been this idea it's become a battle between the theater (PAC) versus pickleball. If i am to be completely honest, if the theater was just for the Players, i'd be hard pressed to grasp the return on investment for a couple of plays per year. None of the data supports the expense they are looking at (13 million to renovate the existing auditorium, and way more to build new).

Where i do see value is the potential uses for the theater far beyond the Players. It's what i have called the under-served segment of Sun City population. There's a slew of members who aren't interested in golf, pickleball, hanging around the pools or working out in the fitness areas. I woke this morning and in one of my news feeds there was an interesting story about the city of Surprise running classes in conjunction with Osher lifelong earning through ASU. It will be huge and something we are sorely lacking in.

Ideally it would be at Lakeview, but the Players don't want to wait (i get it), but being in the center of the community makes the most sense. Unfortunately the Lakeview remodel is 5-10 years down the road given the costs we will be facing for golf course retrofitting for the 5th water management plan (2025). Even if the North tuff turf experiment works out, we will still be looking at 20 million dollars for those conversions. Nothing is cheap these days, and everything will get more expensive as every golf course will be scrambling to find solutions.

Back to Mountain View; it's clear, the much loved pool will be updated and some sort of fitness area/locker rooms will be adjacent (recent proposals, while great sounding are illogical). The mini-golf will be refurbished, and there are discussions for adding an ADA compatible (9 holes) that's possible (though the ultimate question will be a what cost?). There will be more pickleball courts; whether there are some enclosed or just outdoor/covered is up for grabs. The value for indoor is this (in my opinion): It would allow for less courts with higher utilization and more importantly the noise mitigation would be significant. It would also make for an interesting marketing campaign, but would that just drive the need for more courts, wouldn't it?

I have no stake in the game but i have been outspoken, much to the chagrin of some. The MV lawn bowling could be moved to Fairway (as long as the Fairway carpeting is replaced); it's a much nicer venue and i know the utilization numbers and arguing we need 7 greens is more from an emotional basis than a data driven factor. Let me be clear, we have the nicest lawn bowling greens in North America and i'm far more interested in that, than claiming we have the most in a concentrated community (which we do by the way).

Finally, the tennis courts can and should be gone at MV, again with the tradeoff being they resurface at least 3 of the tennis courts at Lakeview. There's four there but one of them is squeezed in. Not my call, but opening up the MV project for the water retention and parking issues will allow the board greater flexibility for the largest number of users. That should ultimately be the true test of what ultimately ends up on the site.

 

Seems to me that we are no closer to having any sort of consensus as to what should be done at MV than we were when this process began. I fear that all the momentum that was gained from the ASU survey has been squandered and the only thing that’s happened is the can has been kicked down the road for another year and no apparent resolution is in view.

 

There has been much discussion around the available parking at Mountain View. Remember that there are reasons for the county regulations. How many of us want to drive around for ten minutes trying to find a parking space because there aren't enough for all of the amenities? A related question is traffic. Even if RCSC were to be granted a waiver for more parking, that means there would be more traffic. Can the area handle that?

I just finished watching the November 3rd SAC meeting. It seems like we are hearing pie in the sky proposals with nothing more than mere wishful thinking.

I don't know the details of the PAC but it seems that retractable seating is an option with a wood floor for dance classes and other groups. Although $13 million is a hefty price, perhaps that is the best option at this time. If the Sun City Foundation can find additional outside funding in terms of grants or bequests, perhaps a nicer PAC can be built at Lakeview in 5-10 years and the one at Mountain View could be used for smaller audiences and other uses such as dancing or other sports or fitness classes.

Just one woman's thoughts....

 

Retractable seating seems a no brainer to me.

 

Personally, I think the Board has to make a decision. There has been enough input, they have spent the last months gathering ideas, they know how much space is available, there are X number of dollars available. Will it be perfect? No. RCSC and the Members have missed many opportunities and we can't go back. After Monday's TH, it's time to put the pieces together, work with the management team, make a decision and move forward. Mountainview is but one major issue in this sprawling community. It's time to make hard decisions so this project can get underway. At the same time planning must move forward for the future. RCSC can not afford, financially or strategically, to find itself in this position again.

 

With retractable seating, I keep visualizing the opportunity for an occasional Diner Theater set-up? Wouldn't that be nice? Just have it catered!

Yeah, and unfortunately, even after all the SAC meetings and Town Halls, the Board is going to be where all the praise or criticism gets blamed on!

Lets face it, even after management has its say, it all gets funneled down to the 9 members of the board! I believe they are in a no-win situation because we all know you'll never please everyone!

 

It appears that management has not been involved at all. Is this the case and if not why not? They can't expect members to know all the construction details that will move this project forward.

 

Management and the co-chairs of SAC have intentionally been quiet on the issues concerning MV because many members believe they project a certain weighted influence when there needs to be just a free-flowing of ideas and concepts from a memberships point of view.

If you were aware of the SAC meetings you would know they tried to prevent the co-chairs from even voting and they also eliminated them from the chairing the committee.

I believe the board will be fully informed and engaged in the process once all the noise is eliminated and they're just left with making decisions on the facts.

 

That's true. That's the Corporate structure we're living under. It's not a perfect system. I do not envy their position. Could a better decision-making process have been created? Probably. And that's the task moving forward as a long range plan is developed.

 

FYI you are saying that members do not want managment input or advice on issues such as this? Of course they will have weighted influence as they should. The assessment pays to employ staff with knowledge and experience does it not?

 

I'm saying the members of the SAC committee didn't want their perceived weighted influence.

 

I was conflicted about Board members voting on SAC choices. They vote on the final decisions as Board members. They were chairs and as such they were tasked with leading and organizing, not influencing, the meetings. My opinion.

 

And that's the exact reason why that committee was required to be established by a motion at a board meeting, which it wasn't.

During the creation of that committee the entire board would have established who the specific members would be as well as who may chair the meetings and if the committee was authorized with any special powers.

I also believe that if you read the responsibilities of the Long Range Planning Committee one could argue that the SAC committee should have been establishes as a sub-committee of the LRPC because you can't appoint a special committee to perform a task that falls within the assigned function of an existing standing committee.

The LRPC has/had already collected much of the utilization data and other information thru prior research by that committee!!!

I know this getting into the weeds but it kind of explains why some of these committees run in circles and off the rails.

 

I heard the board president say at least twice that the committee would decide what would happen at MV. So I guess multiple options is what the board will deal with moving forward. And I personally am okay with that.

 

Great points, Tom.

This process may have addressed several pain points.

 

I think the Board needs to address whether co-chairs are voting members or not in either a Board policy or the Bylaws. It is too wishy washy now. Sometimes the Co Chairs vote and don't at other times. On the Bylaws Review Committee, one Co Chair , who was really the self appointed Chair, always voted and the other Co Chair did at times.

Personally I don't think they should vote but they could perhaps be a tie breaker as is the case in my local city council and mayor. The mayor only votes if there is a tie. (Just an idea.)

Regardless there needs to be consistency and it needs to be written so everyone knows what to expect.