4 and Done...Now What?

Yikes; attended all 4 town hall meetings and was impressed by the comments (even if i disagreed with some of them). It's just encouraging to see RCSC members care enough to show up and speak out. It was how we were built and why we were so successful.

Running away from the membership and committee participation never made any sense to me. While some would point to the ad hoc committee for the Grand Center, i would argue, if that played such an important role, why did the Bell Stained Glass club have to show up and plead their case not to be moved there? If data mattered when the decisions were made; how much was there when the archery range was set aside? And why did it take so long to let that space sit vacant in the second building where the vintage car club is?

The other time the board went out of their way and did a good job was the two town hall meetings regarding the Mountain View renovation (2018 i think). They got serious about fixing that center, and after they collected the information...they went off and built the Grand Center and then went and built the South Pro Shop, using PIF.

There's little value in looking backwards; we know the problems we are facing. The point of this exercise is what comes next? Clearly the board has a plethora of opinions and more importantly they have in their hot little hands, real data. They have hard numbers, rather than clinging to the emotional attachment to what members want...rather than if it is truly needed?

There are questions and they need to be answered. Now it needs to be done in house. As i wrote in another thread, nothing is more important than knowing if the Mountain View auditorium is salvageable. Getting a site evaluation should be first and foremost on the list. Several commenters said they supported "Plan M," but that plan made the assumption they could repurpose the building.

Assumptions simply aren't good enough at this point in the game. The architect told everyone in the SAC meetings she had no idea until a site evaluation was done. That makes a huge difference in the decisions that will ultimately be made.

I said it yesterday, i will say it here: Given what has transpired this past year, for the first time since 2008, i trust the RCSC board and management to do the right thing. And so we are clear, it has nothing to do with what i think is the right thing. Data should drive the discourse.

 

My only question. Why wasn't a site evaluation authorized as soon as Marlene raised the issue? Or, why wasn't it done before the process even started? We can't go back, but seriously - we continuously put the cart before the horse. We've spent months trying to get to a point that the Board could make a decision. They/we don't even know the answer to the most important question that will drive the entire project. How much will it really cost? If it can't be remodeled, then what?

 

And my only question is...who decided to place 4 site options on the Town Hall meetings when only 2 options were approved by the SAC committee?

That question was asked by 2 Members at the last Town Hall but simply ignored!

And what ever happened that Norm Dickson stopped attending the Town Halls or John Fast and Jeff Darbut leaving the committee? Seems like there were several competing agendas but rather than "compromising" I guess it was easier too just bail-out?

 

I'll say it again. Having members suggest is one thing having them make final decisions without the GM involved is quite another. Why wasn't experienced RCSC project management not brought into the picture long ago? We might not be all the way there but we'd be a lot closer. Put the pride aside and work as a team!

 

My understanding was that SAC was formed to provide further review, clarity and direction on the Mountain View project. I haven't been able to attend the meetings but from reading the above comments, it doesn't appear that objective has been met.

I'm all for objective data, but it should be only one of the deciding factors. Subjectivity needs to be weighed as well, and fairly.

I fully understand Pickle ball's amazing growth and popularity and I acknowledge it's future demand curve. It's huge. It's obviously going to be a big part of our recreational future. I can say this confidently as a self described athlete and sports fan. Regardless, I feel the arts, all arts, are, and always will be timeless and valued. They provide a balance to our competitive nature and a much needed benchmark for civil society and human creativity. I'm not a fan of theater, and often times find it somewhat coarse and self gratifying. That said however, I look back upon the course of human history and see the long term positive impact it has on community and culture. It would be a mistake lose this connection to culture and civility.

I've visted Mountain View. I've walked through the facilities, including the current theater area. In my opinion, the entire facility is well beyond renovation. It's a tear down. Lakeview isn't very far behind. And what about Oakmont?

Mountain View, including the previously promised theater, needs replacing. STAT. Performing Arts need to remain part of this community. Pickle ball, the current 10,000 lb gorilla in the room(move over golf), needs to graciously wait it's turn.

Sun City is a treasure because of the broad range of fulfilling activities it offers the community.

Unfortunately, paralysis by analysis is where things seem to be now.

 

I agree with Stephen. I have watched most of the videos from this summer and fall. (Still need to watch the 11/20/23 Town Hall.) From 1200 miles away, here is what I see:

• We have gone from trying to save 7 pickle ball courts (Option 2) to adding many, many more.
  
• I think we can manage pickle ball play, using court time reservations, just like golf uses tee times. For many years, I reserved tennis courts at my local Y. Why can't this be done? It seems to me it would alleviate people waiting for court times and spread play out across the day. Again, just like golf does. Maybe use a lottery system for courts like golf uses for tee times.
  
• We need to accept the fact that pickle ball will probably be growing, at least in the immediate future. However, I am not sure we need to start building more courts just so some want to play 4-5 times per week for a couple of hours each time at their preferred time. That means that one foursome is tying up a court for up to 10 hours per week.
  
• Sure, many golfers play 4-5 times per week, taking 4-5 hours each time, but they pay green fees. Big difference! Also the golfers have had to make many concessions this year to make it more equitable for all. They have had it too good for too long!
  
• I don't care to live in a community that just focuses on athletics. We need the arts and other clubs to widen our offerings. In my opinion, the PAC should be the first and foremost priority for PIF.
  
• I am all for an air conditioned indoor pickle ball facility, but in its own time. Not now!
• As Bill P pointed out, if we build more pickle ball facilities, more people will buy in SC, then we will need more parking spaces and more courts. Reminds me of the children's book "If you give a mouse a cookie.....he will want a glass of milk, if you give him a glass of milk, he will want a straw, and on and on......"

[/QUOTE]

 

Interesting comments as always gang. There is no one right answer, and suffice to say, there will always be differing opinions. Lord knows i share mine frequently. The problem with opinions are they are wholly different than data. We labored with virtually none for years. The RCSC used to collect it from clubs submitting numbers often based on their own hand counts. It wasn't always pure and at one point the GM told clubs to quit collecting it and just relied on membership numbers.

It was why for some 15 plus years we have been crying out for enhanced technology. Scanners at every club shouldn't be that hard or expensive. Now we know our technology delivery structure was incapable of collecting and sending it. How pathetic is that? And even with all the upgrades this past year, we still struggle with remote access at RCSC meetings. That's simply unacceptable in this day and age. The good news is, we are getting there.

The most challenging decision facing us regarding the Mountain View remodel is regarding the performing arts theater (PAC). I've written often it belongs at Lakeview, simply because it is centrally located in the community. The members that will be using it will often be those most under-served. Older members who may not partake in any other RCSC activities. And to be clear, if it was just for the players, i wouldn't spend anywhere near the money we are looking at. Data and trends across the country tells us that.

From my perspective (opinion), a theater with comfortable seating could and should be used 250-300 times per year. If we can reach those kinds of figures it will be money well spent. The downside for the Players is the more it is used, the less time they get scheduled in it. While they have championed multi-usage across any number of groups, it truly will be a two-edged sword for them. The Players don't want to wait, so let them have their 300 seat theater at MV and we can finally put the discussion to bed. Lord knows it has raged on far too long.

Here's the other really nasty data problem, and especially for me. I refuse to see and hear BS without questioning and challenging it. Sorry, it's just my nature. I watched in stunned horror during the entire summer as we were told repeatedly the lawn bowling green at Mountain View had to stay. The claim was we couldn't possibly get by without it.

It was and still is utter fabrication. There was an effort to control the process and protect all 7 greens. The numbers do not dictate that position; they haven't in years. The reality was when we had a lawn bowler writing checks (to the tune of $750,000 to a million dollars), the RCSC let everything slide. She was beloved by the lawn bowling community, as well she should have been. She's gone now and the game has changed.

I spoke out at one of the SAC meetings claiming we could lose the Mountain View green. The caveat was the Fairway artificial carpet that was scheduled to be replaced in 2020 (and hasn't been), needs to be done so the MV bowlers can move there or to Oakmont's greens. Both are close and an easy transition. The next SAC meeting the club president at both Fairway and Mountain View said we needed both.

There is not a number or statistic that supports that position. Last night i got an email that was sent to all bowlers telling them to show up at the annual membership meeting on Nov 29 and to lobby to "Save the Mountain View Green." If nothing else, it will make for a really interesting meeting because i have every intention of questioning/challenging why we need to do that?

And so everyone understands, the data regarding utilization exists. The cry was always "we are the second busiest outdoor sport in Sun City, therefore we need 7 greens." It is a virtually meaningless statement when looking at utilization. While i have been a lawn bowler for 20 years and still do a lot of stuff for the clubs, i am a RCSC member first. The fact we have the best greens in North America is amazing and much appreciated. Having 7 greens when we don't need 7 and the space is needed for clubs that are growing is a no-brainer for me.

Sorry bowlers but BS will always just be that; BS.

 

I would suspect that any motion relating to eliminating or saving a venue would be dead-on-arrival but it will contribute to having a quorum?

First of all, I don't believe a motion was submitted in that regard, I may be wrong. But secondly, since the RCSC exists for the primary purpose of providing recreation, this, in my opinion, falls directly under the "affairs of the corporation" and I suspect will simply be sent back to the board for study?

Yeah, 7 courts for less than 360 Members is a bit overkill!

 

And if really a problem, a new lb court at another rec center would be easier to build than a PAC and/or pb courts.

 

Sun City homes will always sell for reasons other than recreation. Most residents don't use the rec centers. Point is homes will still sell if we don't add more pickle ball. The reasoning that we need to draw people to Sun City with pickle ball doesn't hold water.

 

If we removed a lawn bowl green, would that count toward our water reduction required by the ADWR? Is the ADWR only concerned with golf courses?

 

It's not just related to golf course watering Paul; my understanding it covers water utilization and lawn bowlers have been told to expect 25% less water for the greens in 2025, Oddly, that shouldn't pose much of a problem as lawn bowlers have been telling the RCSC they water our greens too much. Summer is our growing season and when we go without rain (like last summer) it's problematic. It's during the winter months when they dump water on them, even though the greens are dormant,

My vision, while on the board, was the conversion to all artificial surfaces. Like most of my ideas/suggestions, they never went anywhere. Bowlers prefer grass surfaces. I spent time with on the board of the Southwest Division (the national organization) and as i studied the long term trends impacting the sport, i saw little to inspire me about our future. The good news is lawn bowlers from around the country see Sun City, Sun City West and the Grand as viable retirement options and continuing to play the sport they love.

So the answer is yes, less water for the greens but if managed properly, it won't be much of an issue. One less green clearly helps in that equation as i believe the measuring stick for the 2025 reduction will be water usage in 2024. The beauty of this is the RCSC can resurface the Fairway green during 2024 and when they start the remodel at MV, the club can move the 3/4 mile down the road.

 

That's been a long time coming and carries some weight, at least for me.

 

I have watched all four town hall videos. I heard Steve mention that an indoor pickle ball facility would be around $10M but earlier I think I read it was $25M. Does anyone know the approximate cost of all of the saved and new Pickle Ball courts at MV, plus how many total there would be? Thanks, I have some math I would like to do with those figures and I don't have time to watch the videos again. Next time I will have to take notes! Thanks for any help with this.

 

SAC was not given the cost of indoor pickleball courts. One Co-chair instructed us to use $500 a sqft. With that info, 8 indoor pickleball courts would be about $10.5-$11m.

 

Thanks, Paul. How many additional courts would be outside at MV?

 

That really has not been decided. That is what the board must figure out.

 

Paul, can you give me an approximate number? 8? 12? 25?
Thanks

 

It could be 8 indoor and between 7 and 13 outdoor.

 

Thanks again, Paul, for the information.

For anyone interested, I put my pencil to the paper and this is what I came up with regarding Pickleball courts at MV:

• For anyone playing pickleball in the summer in Sun City, it would be very nice to have a climate controlled facility. (However, I am reminded that I took up golf 50 years ago in the Midwest fully knowing that I would only be able to play 6-8 months a year unless there was an unseasonably warm winter. Same with outdoor tennis and the wind always interferes with that in Nebraska!)
  
• If it costs $500 per square foot to build eight indoor courts, the cost for the facility would be $10.5 - $12M.
• According to what I could find on the Internet, good quality outdoor courts with fencing, lighting, and space for resting costs about $40,000 per court.
• I will use a conservative 10 outdoor courts for a total cost of $400,000.
• Also using conservative figures for both eight indoor courts and 10 outdoor courts, the total to build them would be about $11M.
• The Sun City Pickleball Club touts over 1100 RCSC Members on their roster. If there are another 300 RCSC Members who play but don't belong to the club, we have about 1400 Members who play pickleball (not counting any guests).
• If you divide the $11 Million by 1400 RCSC Members, it would cost nearly $8,000 per pickleball player to build these indoor and outdoor courts.
  
• I am wondering if RCSC has ever built a facility that costs $8,000 per player. Perhaps the Archery Club , Vintage Car Club or Camera Club but I don't think we were ever told how much was spent on those facilities. Certainly golf courses are expensive but they were built decades ago. Even with the maintenance of golf courses, I doubt if the expenses are $8,000 per golfer.

This is the way my mind thinks. I need to put things in perspective before forming an opinion. I don't think I could support spending that amount of money at this time when RCSC has so many other needs and Lakeview also needs a total renovation for RCSC Members who prefer other activities.