Nov. 11 Special Session

Good comments Eileen with one question/assessment from my discussions following yesterday's meeting. I don't think it was the GM that directed Tri-Marc to focus on putting the PAC directly on the water. It appears as if several of the board members saw having lake frontage increasing and enhancing the PAC as some sort of destination of choice for the community at large?

I'm in an odd position; as a lawn bowler i have a bias. That said, lawn bowling is not Sun City's future. That's not to say people won't bowl, it's simply a recognition of the fact the sport isn't one that is growing like pickelball. We need double greens for our own local tournaments and gatherings. We don't need 7 greens, as i have been saying since the SAC meetings allowed comments.

The board was offered an out yesterday, with changing the motion to just say the PAC will be at Lakeview, not where at Lakeview. They refused to budge as they were adamant it had to have shoreline frontage. That argument is frustrating because they used the Mountain View remodel and the members that use it as hostages and an excuse to rushing this motion through.

And let me be really clear: This decision to take the greens and build a two story building in the backyards of home owners was made public the end of October. Within three weeks they will have scheduled a special meeting with a first vote and and hold an early board meeting (due to Thanksgiving, which is always the case) and have a second vote. One might suggest/imply/say...this looks like it is being rushed/pushed through.

Without regard to the issue, that is never a good look for any board...EVER.

 

Bill, the GM is directed by the Board and was responsible for managing the architect bids . . . . hence, why he most likely directed Tri-Arc to focus on the lake front.

Agree with all you have said here.

 

Hi Bill,
I am unsure where the GM stands on some of this. I do have some observations now about the frantic vigilance of the man to swoop in here and change up the entire place. Some for the good, but other things should be moving with more thought and consideration of lifestyle, quality of life. I don't like the idea that the idea is we have to change everything up, for the sake of I'm coming in here to change it all up. I have some feelings about the impression he and yes, others on board are making here. I do think we need to be thinking of more quality of life...aspects to everything we are doing in here. I do appreciate the updates and repairs that he has set in motion, but something as big as our signature location ( Lakeview) needs I feel more careful consideration. I agree with you Bill, it feels like a rush job. I would like to know why the board feels they need to tear down Lakeview. What is this really based on?
For the past 2 years, I listen to every meeting online, and the discussion was we need to rebuild a new MView fitness center and maybe PAC there. It feels like everything has become muddled with each new meeting, and no one thing gets clearly defined. Yes, Lakeview was the latest 'new' discussion in the recent year, but only a discussion. I don't how we went from 0 to 100 so fast.
As residents we have a right to say, we are slowing this train down...and maybe stopping the train, until further discussion with credible reasons for purging our lake park and recreating the entire community. Much more needs to happen.

 

Yes they can and no you are not.

 

VIDEOS Access Fee & Lakeview Motions RCSC Exchange Meeting & Special Session, Monday, November 11, 2024
Vote Motion passes 6-1 Foster, 2 absent Collins & Fimmel. Special Session at 3:05
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdLy0Uy9sKWCJNLz37tn5ug

 

Still think this is the wrong approach!

Who's going to want to serve on the Board after you recall them all?

Go after and turn over the motion!

 

Tom-
Since you are the most versed of us in Roberts Rules and have studied our Articles and Bylaws, could you please explain how the group would go about turning the motion over?
Jean

 

The RCSC Board would need to amend the bylaws to allow for the vote. Not sure how they did that for the Sunbowl. I think it would be possible, but I haven't looked at the Articles of Incorporation. I suppose they could take a vote, but it would be nonbinding at this point in time. Think about the precedent this would set. Would the Board need to get a vote of the Members for other capital expenditures? Just some thoughts.........

 

Yes, thanks for the input Janet - all makes sense (e.g. nonbinding at this point). I was just thinking of it as a "referendum" since we are self-governed (vs. a city that puts them out for vote) so this crazy stuff doesn't happen. After all we should have a voice vs. 9 members making the decision - even though Sun City is a republic of sorts. When I heard about the $2 vote, it's something that should be considered and there could be some sort of reasonable perimeters so it doesn't happen all the time - agree we'd have to think about what those perimeters would be.

 

The view from the cheap seats is the Board was elected by the members, but if you didn’t vote you have to accept it and cannot whine about it. Elections are coming so if you are upset over things, make your voice heard. Better yet, run for the Board.

You are part of the solution or part of the landscape.

 

Oh and that'll get us far this year with only 6 people running for 5 seats and 3 of them incumbents. But yes, vote. And we have Articles of Incorporation that must be followed.

Bottom line, the Board heard plenty of good objections to this vote, particularly the long-term plan for Lakeview in it's entirety and chose to ignore these owners. There are more where those in attendance came from and how convenient that it was a 5 hour meeting and we lost many in attendance. Not wise planning to ensure attendance at such an important meeting. Perception is reality.

 

Thanks, Bill, for divulging that you are a lawn bowler. I wish others, especially Board Directors, would do the same when proposing or voting on an RCSC issue. You are also honest about the future of lawn bowling. Many people would be in denial about the sport or activity they love. Glad that you are straight forward about it.

I am going out a limb here because I am 1200 miles away and haven't watched the video yet. I recall that the Board wanted to have a site selected for the PAC before going any further on the MV remodel. It appears that the MV site doesn't have the room needed for it and the other amenities that are requested by the Members and SAC. Plus it is not centrally located.I am glad that information has been brought forward so MV can move ahead.

Another consideration was where would the Players hold their performance in the two or more years that MV will be out of commission. Did anyone at the meeting indicate whether MV and the PAC would be built at the same time? Or would MV be taken care of first and the PAC later? Either way it would appear that the Players will need to find another venue for awhile. Is there a church in Sun City where they could hold their performances? Not ideal, but perhaps manageable. Let's hope the PAC is not built before MV just so the Players have a venue!

I agree with the majority of the views here that it is too soon to make a decision where the PAC will be other than not at Mountain View. Members deserve to know more about why the Bell Center was rejected as a possible site. Once someone stated there isn't enough parking for the amount of square feet of the large building. That needs to either be clarified to the Members or investigated further. Also, if ultimately at LV, the PAC needs to be part of an overall plan. I didn't think we were going to piecemeal things anymore.

 

One clarification, the architects report did indicate that Mt. View was a viable option with some marginal reasons as to why not best.

For whatever reason the server is not letting me upload the snapshots.

 

As i started to root around for the reasons Bell was dismissed i was forwarded a copy from the Tri-Arc presentation regarding the Bell Center. For anyone who has seen the online presentation where all the centers were listed, Bell had 4 potential sites; only one was realistically viable. That would be on the corner of 99th and Hutton. Sadly the 4 locations allowed them to make the reasons look extensive.

Here's a what i received (dated 10-31-24). Option 1 and 2 on lawn bowling greens. Option 3 SW corner. Option 4 parking lot by the library.
Pros:
* Minimally invasive effect to locate PAC at showcase options.
*All options provide opportunity for minimal changes in drive approach.
*Visually impactful from road.
* Major roadways adjacent.
* Option areas all allow for optimal orientation.
* Option 4 has existing drive that could be used for back of house loading area.
* Construction phasing opportunity easier due to large site area.
*MORE THAN ENOUGH PARKING EVEN WITH PAC ADDITION (my caps not theirs).

Cons:
* Option 1 and 2 remove existing lawn bowling.
* Option 3 remove softscape area in SW corner.
* Option 4 removes existing parking.
* Option 1, 2 and 3 do not allow for non-prominent "back of house" elevation.
* Option 4 450'+ away from 99th Ave roadway entrance/exit.
* Adjacent to residential.
* Option 2 would require relocating farmers market (i think this is a mistake as opt 2 was one of the lawn bowling greens).

Considerations/Opportunities.
* Could option 4 become a catalyst for the connection needed to amplify the east-west walkway?
* Bell is already newer and larger recreation focused facility-does the addition of a PAC confuse focus.

As i read this i sat kind of stunned. It looked like they worked overtime to make it look like Bell wouldn't work. When reducing the equation down to the one site that would work best (the corner of 99th and Hutton) there are more positives than negatives. Losing the farmers market...really? Members confused by the addition of a PAC at Bell...really?

You be the judge gang, i simply don't get the logic of booting Bell unless the goal was to have lake front access.

Just one man's opinion.

 

And what does that tell you?

It explanes why the Board rejected every proposed amendment to Collin's original motion.

The whole thing was predetermined, and as I said earlier, the Board meeting was a performance that put the Player's to shame!

 

Matches my thought that the MV rationale against was marginal at best. The positives of both Bell and Mt. View minimized.

 

Kinda makes you wonder why they changed architectural firms? They already had paid an architect to design Mountain View but apparently the wrong answer was, "sure, there's room at Mountain View to make it work."

I guess the right answer should have been, "not enough room at Mountain View" for her to keep the project?"

 

Not really fun to watch but if you look back at some of my posts you will see some tells I said about this board, but as usual I was raked over the coals. I watched every side eye, eye roll from every board member on those telling videos, and pointed them out, along with every hot mic moment. But what do I know? As Dave said I am just a secretary and Bill said no one gives a shit about me.

Dave should not serve in any position within Sun City. Here's a lovely quote about what he thinks about SC residents:

Rich, glad to see you back from the sunburn surprise.

Rich, while I found your explanations spot on and easily understandable, you must know that a good percentage of our population is obtuse at best and wouldn’t 7nderstand non-profits if Big Bird came down and explained it. They are clamoring for the five year plan and why is it taking so long. You know that this is not like purchasing a five year day planner at Staples and you just fill in the blanks. It covers the deferred maintenance, since we seem to be moving on MV, that project is 2-3 years depending on final drawings and just basic capital expenses. Plus we have to make sure we have the bucks for this.

Then we have the dog club which to me is the like the car club with fur. I spoke with the club president when this first surfaced and learned that while teaching River c how to run in between sticks, the real purpose is for the two legged creatures to hang out and shoot the bull. So what they want is an air conditioned social club house so they can hang out, throw seasonal parties while Ruffy learns to run in circles to catch his/her tail. Just my prediction, if they get this space I guarantee they will come back and ask for more. I feel the same way about a performing arts center, it’s a boondoggle. If we are planning for the next generation, how do we know this is what they want? I’ll answer the question, we think we know, but we don’t know and the biggest problem is we have not realized we don’t know.

I’ll stop now as I believed I have upset enough people already.

One final mystery, evidently the by laws are being rewritten by a Board member and a person who is unknown. The Board member wants me to review some documents, still unnamed, but have not received. I have asked when do I receive these and the member says I am so busy that it sinks in the stack of paper. Time to call the member out on this transparency thing or lack thereof.
You have your ear to the ground on this? I don’t want to find out the other person working on this is some clown who knows nothing of legal construction or the different scenarios of each by law. Basically all talk no experience screwing with our corporate documents.

OK I am really done.
May 14, 2024 at 10:05 PM

This will be made public, and maybe getting Dave out will be the start of getting the rest of the egomaniacs out. Every great movement has a beginning.

 

I have read this a few times and I still don't understand what it means. (This is from the Pros and Cons of locating the PAC at Bell.)
Pros:
* Minimally invasive effect to locate PAC at showcase options.

Could option 4 become a catalyst for the connection needed to amplify the east-west walkway?