Upcoming Budget Meetings

We do not want to be covered by Title 33 as it would change a lot of how RCSC operates.

I have known Les for years. He is the “Conservative” member of budget and finance committee. I do not mean conservative in a bad way but his viewpoint is one of many that we consider. He is a good man.

 

That was the big problem with the lawsuit, no real legal opinion. I attended a couple of court dates and it was obvious to me that the judge really did not understand the action and what was at stake. I believe he took the easy way out with that opinion which took months to issue. I wasn’t impress with the attorneys either. RCSC attorneys were accustomed to large class actions probably on personal injury or something like that. Plaintiffs attorneys won a case agains a small HOA I believe in Green Valley and they were looking at their first deep pockets case with the RCSC. Their arguments were scattered and at times I thought incomprehensible. I think the judge just wanted to get rid of it after three years.

 

Now you have moved into idiot territory. Since you never attend any committee meetings you say seriously dumb shit not based in fact. Les in meetings is the true voice of members as he advocates for the financially stressed regarding fees, is spending large amounts on large projects on cost effective basis such PAC. Maybe you should send hubby to these meetings so you actually learn something or is he an apparition like Sgt. Schultz over at MCSO?

 

I am so sick of you. He did not explain the difference between the low SC fee and the higher SCW fee. Robert explained it. Wonder what it means to constantly call someone names?

 

Please note this is not a legal opinion. This is my personal observation and some logic that I find persuasive (unless someone convinces me otherwise). the below is from the Arizona Revised statutes,

"10-3610. Difference in rights and obligations of members

All members have the same rights and obligations with respect to voting, dissolution, redemption and transfer, unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws establish classes of membership with different rights or obligations or otherwise provide. All members have the same rights and obligations with respect to any other matters, except as set forth in or authorized by the articles of incorporation or bylaws."

On their face RCSC articles and bylaws do not appear to establish separate classes of members. However, they establish different rights and obligations for different members surreptitiously by (1) grandfathering certain owners into a per person fee allocation and (2) excluding residents of another state who are part time resident owners in Sun City (aka snowbirds) from running for the board. I would ask the historian(s) of our group to shed any light on how we got to where we are. I think the latter rule (excluding snowbirds from board positions) hurts Sun City because it limits the pool of candidates for board positions. However, I am over it. In my view, we need to play the ball from where it lies and assure we have robust processes in place to counteract the personal preferences of any particular board member or minority group of members regardless of how vocal they should become. I am a firm proponent of data based decision making. It ads continuity, stability and rationality to the process which helps reduce the work required by all who play a role in the process. It is transparent and and allows members to trust the process (if they choose to do so.).

 

Janet, the current proposed increase, while substantial allows us to exit the no increase for six years mantra and catch up on the deferred maintenance. The projected increase (necessary) is smaller as are future. COLA is a bit subjective as which COLA do you want to use, overall or chain inflation?

 

Seems to me that says it all! The Statutes do allow for the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws to set-up different classes of Membership, however, there is still that pesky clause regarding all Members, in good standing, having "equal rights"! So is there a right that allows Members to pay a different assessment rate? Apparently so!

Articles of Incorporation: The Bylaws of the Corporation shall prescribe the qualifications of Members and the terms of admission to membership, provided that the voting rights of all Members shall be equal and all Members shall have equal rights and privileges, and be subject to equal responsibilities. Such Bylaws shall also provide the method for determining assessments to be paid by the Members.

Apparently, "equal rights" is not the same as equal obligations.

 

As they say every Thursday night at the Sundial auditorium:

"Bingo."

 

I would use the COLA that Social Security uses because that is what so many Sun City residents depend upon. I am not opposed to the proposed increase because I know we need to catch up on maintenance. It was foolish to not increase it for six years.

 

It's an interesting question John and one of these days i will pull out the decisions made by the legal affairs committee that was in place in 2002 when that decision regarding the per lot assessment was rendered. Curious if they were asked about it. I think i gave you a copy of them.

As far as any relative history regarding payments, we would need to go back to 1960/1961. It's not relevant given the structure, but it if anyone had payed attention, it might have made a difference in their decision to move off the per person payment in 2003.

When Community Center opened in 1960, membership was optional. Only 60% joined and their payment was $40 a year (for the household). Those living in New Life Unit 1 and New Life Unit 2 were allowed not to pay/join. By the summer of 1960 DEVCO saw the error of their ways and each Unit after the first two were asked to sign a facilities agreement, That agreement allowed them to use the soon to be open Town Hall (Fairway) and the cost was $12 per person per year.

The story gets more convoluted as those paying the per person rate could use both centers while in most instances those who were paying per property were only allowed to use Community Center. Admittedly this was with two separate organizations with each having their own documents. It gets even stranger because DEVCO gave community center to members the beginning of 1961 while the members at Town Hall didn't take ownership till 1965.

I saw comments above about why Sun City West fees for couples went up so much above, especially when compared to Sun City's. At the risk of oversimplifying the discussion, it's little more than a math equation. With a limited number of households (Sun City West with 18,000 rooftops) and the population of singles being greater than 40%, that results in less revenue per rooftop.

Any community has to cover their budgets based on the revenue they collect. The board members in Sun City saw those potential single family rooftops (27,500) and decided a per lot assessment would be a better system with a more consistent revenue stream. I would argue, with costs increasing like they are, a better system would be per person; if for no other reason than those single home owners get hit twice as hard and the RCSC has tried not to increase the fees as much as they have in the past year or two (and in the coming years).

The reality is this: Our amenity package; with substantial grounds and golf courses, and with 300,000 sq ft of air conditioned space, our costs continues to grow a lot. The money has to come from somewhere and we know by deferring that maintenance we only made it worse.

There's no easy answers. We know historically we have always found them.

 

All I know is that singles are getting angry. What was done to us was not right. Nothing we can do. There are options for singles tho. I can take that $650, add it to my taxes, move to a small home in a non 55 community. I don't use the facilities, won't use the pools because God only know what's in them, and hubbs never golfed here. He found deals at courses in Scottsdale etc, but no more golf so there ya have it. We got screwed because in 2003 our 'leaders' were to lazy or stupid, or both to keep things fair. Why stay in a place where you can't trust those you elect to do the best for all.

 

Thanks Bill for the history. I completely agree there are no easy answers. No matter what RCSC does or doesn't do someone will get pissed off. Anyone that has raised a large family will realize that what mom and dad do for one is noticed by all the others and there is no such thing as perfectly equal. One learns to live with whining in the background. What concerns me is our community seems to have a very vocal minority who are perpetually dissatisfied and demand more from others at less cost to them. I am troubled by their lack of community engagement but respect their right to live as they choose. On the other hand, I am encouraged by a new spirit of community by some who would be considered "newcomers". As always, life is like a box of chocolates ....

 

If you really want to learn how unfair and unequal life is, spend a day in a special education classroom with children who have severe disabilities.

 

Apples and oranges Janet. I have no clue why God chooses to give some children disabilities. My cousin has polio and has been in a wheelchair her whole life. No one said I want you to have polio. It is certainly not the choice of the parent or the child. However the 2003 board chose to make things unfair regarding the assessment fee. They said hey, it's easier for us so screw the singles and let's charge by lot, not by person. A group of people decided that for us. One has to conclude we are the dumbest Sun City in the country because we can't keep track of the same thing every other Sun City does. What does that say about us? Hell our cracker jack IT folks updated our website to the point where it doesn't work well at all. Our GM and BOD let us get $50k in deferred maintenance. Yeah baby, sign me up for this!

 

Dave, sweet old silly Dave, MSCO will be at my friend's home tomorrow who I am MPOA and DPOA for something that is none of your damn business. My friend is in no danger so we decided to meet tomorrow. Curious person that I am I gave them the report number I filed on you and asked if we could finalize it. They said yes, so I will be travelling via golf cart. computer in hand.

Best regards

 

Hello Josie I presume that the direction of your dialogue is that RCSC is fleecing single members like yourself by requiring them to pay as much as married individuals for theoretically 1/2 the privileges the married members receive. In fairness I can see the equity side of your argument,. I also see the practicality of charging per household. With this per property assessment system that has been in place for approximately
24 years now I think it is best to let dead dogs lie and NOT SPEND MONEY ON KAT FIMMEL'S PET PROJECT.

 

The dead dog is done. You have no clue how the rabid dogs have been unleashed. I don't care what you have to say Sun city BOD have always been just plain dumb. I have heard it for 40 years.

 

Can we please quit with the nonsense Sun City is the only community that pays on a per household basis. The Villages of Florida pay on a per property basis. Oddly, they are still run by the developer and there is some sort of CPI attachment point where the rates owners pay differ based on when the bought. Not that it matters, the bigger issue is that it's per household.

Beyond that i did a search and found a Realtor's posted cheat sheet for the various assessments local age restricted communities pay. It's done pretty well and appears to be current. Take a look and maybe we can stop the whining (not holding my breath). https://retireaz-resortstyle.com/wp...ix-Retirement-Community-HOA-Fess-Jan-2024.pdf

 

Comparing apples and bananas. They are not Sun City retirement communities other than SC and SCW. SCW states per person on title.

 

What are you talking about?