Board Meeting 2.27.25 includes Master Plan

RCSC Board Meeting Agenda
Thursday, February 27, 2025 @ 9am
Sundial Auditorium

Committee Recommendations
1. Director Rough – I move, based on a recommendation from the Long Range
Planning Committee, that a statement of work be prepared that is suitable for
obtaining bids to select a qualified consultant to prepare a comprehensive
Master Plan covering the properties of the Recreation Centers of Sun City.

Full three page Agenda:
https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2025_02_27-Board-Meeting-Agendapublic.pdf

Full RCSC Meeting Announcement:

• Board Meeting Agenda – February 27, 2025
• Board Meeting Minutes – January 30, 2025
• Treasurer’s Report – February 27, 2025
• Management Report – February 27, 2025
• Balance Sheet – January 2025
• Public Income Statement – January 2025

Here: https://mailchi.mp/ad12f6806f18/board-meeting-agenda-may30-7787360?e=f18f779945

 

I have spoken to those that helped draft the motion to let them know the motion only requires the preparation of a statement of work and not the actual preparation of a master plan and does not set any deadline for having the Master Plan completed. My amendments to the bylaws have addressed this.

 

H’mmm, what is the amendment deadline for completing the Master Plan? I failed to see it mentioned.

If amendments are successfully adopted, how long do you estimate the entire process to take as outlined?

Wouldn’t the elected board, working with LRP and hosting town halls achieve results much sooner?

 

Hello Eyes Open,

I originally set a deadline of the next member meeting but one of the members of the group working on this (and the LRP recommendation) said that was too late. Hmm? I will submit a motion today stating that a. The next annual members meeting is in March of 2026 and b. the master plan will be voted on at that meeting. It is expected the elected board (which will have new members next year) will work collaboratively with the LRP AND MANAGEMENT to develop the most robust plan possible. I have been prohibited by the LRP chair from participating so my contribution will be limited to getting the ball rolling.

 

As i read the agenda and submitted motions to be voted on next week, i was truly impressed. While it may well be a reaction to the coming annual membership meeting, i see the current board actually listening to the members and trying to address their concerns. That is a massive step forward, IMHO.

Historically, we (the membership) have not held the reigns, but most most often acted as buffers to stupid. When those safeguards were stripped from our documents and the subsequent committees neutered, everything changed. Listening to the membership was more an exercise in futility, than a quantitative way to move forward.

Has the evolution begun? Are we on the path back? Will it continue, or is it just temporary to get past the annual membership meeting? As a glass half-full kind of guy and one who believes in the concept of the "common good," i am falling down on the side of this board being focused on the future that includes the membership, not dismissing them.

Just one man's opinion, for sure eh?

 

John, You mention that there is a "group working on this (and the LRP recommendation)". In the spirit of transparency, please tell us more about this group. How many are on this? Who are the members? How often do you meet? How can an RCSC Member be alerted to your meetings so that they could attend? How does one become a member of this group?

Thank you,
Janet

 

PARTICIPATE at the next RCSC Board meeting, 2.27.2025❗️
RCSC Board working for the members wants to hear from you.
Members can sign up prior to the start of the meeting to speak for three minutes on these NEW, first read Agenda Motions:
• Launch to prepare a Master Plan for RCSC properties
• Initiate active RCSC Social Media presence
• Replace the screens, software, and electronics of the existing RCSC marquees
• Proceed with obtaining contractor bids to construct maintenance facility on the now existing site of the Riverview Golf Course maintenance facility
• Disc golf not be incorporated into RCSC golf courses
The Committee Recommendations
1. Director Rough – I move, based on a recommendation from the Long Range Planning Committee, that a statement of work be prepared that is suitable for obtaining bids to select a qualified consultant to prepare a comprehensive Master Plan covering the properties of the Recreation Centers of Sun City.
2. Vice President Nettesheim – I move, on behalf of the Outreach and Communication and Technology Committees, that the RCSC Board accept the recommendation that RCSC have an active presence in Social Media using our current Facebook page as the initial pilot Social Media platform.
3. Vice President Nettesheim – I move, on behalf of the Outreach and Communication and Technology Committees, that the RCSC Board accept the recommendation to replace the screens, software, and electronics of the existing RCSC marquees currently in use at RCSC properties.
4. Director Rough – I move, based on a recommendation from the Long Range Planning Committee, to proceed with obtaining contractor bids to construct a maintenance facility on the now existing site of the Riverview Golf Course maintenance facility, similar to the maintenance facility now existing at the South Golf Course, including an approximately 6,200 square foot steel building, containing four (4) rolling bay doors, climate controlled restrooms, break area/meeting room and superintendent’s office. The remainder the facility will not be climate controlled. The facility will also Include an outdoor storage yard/facility enclosed by a masonry wall. The outdoor storage yard/facility will be large enough to store sand, fertilizer, seed herbicide, other required chemicals needed to maintain a golf course, and a permanent shade structure enclosed by a fence for large mower tractors.
5. Director Kise – I move on behalf of the Golf Advisory Committee (GAC) that disc golf not be incorporated into RCSC golf courses.

Full Agenda: https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2025_02_27-Board-Meeting-Agendapublic.pdf
Other meeting information and documents:
• Board Meeting Minutes – January 30, 2025
• Treasurer’s Report – February 27, 2025
• Management Report – February 27, 2025
• Balance Sheet – January 2025
• Public Income Statement – January 2025

Access Link: https://mailchi.mp/ad12f6806f18/board-meeting-agenda-may30-7787360?e=f18f779945

 

Hello Janet,

I am pleased to answer your questions:

My using the term group is somewhat of a misstatement because the individuals that met three or four times merely discussed their views of ways to improve Sun City. They were all very long-time members. We volunteered to read each other's motions as proofreaders but did not come up with a common agenda. At one meeting there were nine concerned members but two decided they did not want to suffer the slings and arrows that would come from proposing change. (My words.) I will ask any person that attended one of those three or four meetings to disclose their identity as I feel it unethical for me to do so. I hold them all in high regard even though I do not agree with all their views, and they do not agree with all my views. I hope that answers your questions and now that the deadline has passed for motions to be submitted, I don't believe we will be meeting again.

I mean no disrespect but is it fair to say you are against allowing members to vote on the big stuff and believe a motion allowing them to vote should not be presented at the member meeting?

 

I think it is a fair observation that this one-of-a-kind email blast was influenced by the recall campaign, petition to remove the GM, motions to allow members to vote on the big stuff and proxy campaign that were member initiated.

 

I don't care who votes for what. Voting is a privilege and a right to be kept to oneself. I find it totally distasteful, after all the talk about lack of transparency over the last year or so, that you would take it upon yourself along with 3 or 4 others to do exactly what the members do not want. Just who voted for this? Who wants to make your "findings" public? Secret meetings? Secret documents? When is the Coup?

 

John, referenced content is not RCSC generated eblast,

If it was, I would have attributed a link to an original source, as I always do with material shared that isn’t mine.

No source listed, I am the source.

 

OK - Looked like an email blast

OK - You had me fooled! Anyway, I hope members do come and participate. That is what we want!

 

Thanks for responding to my query, John. I think I may have met with one of the individuals who presented his views to me. I can understand that you do not want to divulge their names.

I don't have a problem with anyone making proposals for the Annual Member Meeting. That is the way the bylaws are written. I would just caution Members to be careful how they vote. Many times there are unintended consequences. From what I have read, and I have not read all motions, I plan to support Jean's motion for RCSC to form a Standing Bylaws Committee and work through them. As I have said in the past, I support a Master Plan with the guidance of a professional. I don't know that I can support your motion to have three Master Plans presented to the Member because I believe that would entail unnecessary costs. Having a professional help develop one Master Plan will be expensive. Three separate plans would likely increase the costs nearly threefold.

I am leery of Members voting on large projects because I fear that nothing will pass. I just had friends from home visit. They are in their mid 50's and considering buying a second home. They were very impressed with the variety of amenities and the upkeep of our facilities. (We took them to Lakeview, Grand, Bell and Fairway.) Just the opposite of what some people on this blog say. I would hate to not improve what we already have.

I don't know if I will speak to any of the motions at the meeting or not. I will wait to see the agenda. I think there may be so many proposed bylaw amendments that Members will be confused, even those of us who try to keep up on things.

Thanks for your work trying to better our community but there may be better ways to achieve the same thing.

Janet

 

Don’t have a heart attack but I agree with you on some points.
Dave

 

Of course you do! LOL, also my heart is pretty good. I think my comments were well thought out. I fear that the Annual Meeting may end up a free for all with either none of the motions passing or all of them. Who can keep track of them all? I try to keep up on things and I don't know if I will understand all of the ramifications. I think Mr. Foster can keep things on track but, then again, it is a Member meeting, not a Board meeting. It seems we may have created a monster.

 

All,

I am glad to hear visitors are impressed! It has been a long and tough slog but I feel we are starting to address the deferred maintenance issue although I am still unclear ( and untrusting ) of what is on the deferred maintenance list.

I want to address the unintended consequences aspect of having a member vote on the big stuff and the importance of having a member approved plan in a bit of a long-winded way. My experience prior to BP 16 has been that the RCSC process for developing the big stuff is for agenda driven members to influence the board (or be on the Board) or one or more committees and then find a way to get their project approved by the Board for some amount of money. Sometimes the agenda driven members show up in mass to an exchange meeting with their request and sometimes they have an "in" with one or more directors who got them elected.

There is no objective vetting of the project and little to no discussion of alternatives. From there, an architect is hired to design something using a requirements list developed by someone and eventually some plan is shown to the members and they either yawn or get up in arms.

OK - Now BP16 comes along and says any project request has to present a data-based business case. Great news except there is about $35,00,000 of (pet) projects that are excluded from having to present a business case.

My point here is the ad hoc nature of the RCSC process for selecting and approving the big stuff lacks sufficient due diligence, consideration of alternatives, credible cost analysis, feasibility and community impact analysis, effect on other recreation centers and a slew of other very important items a professional would consider, and members would like considered. That is why when I LISTENED to members the idea of an Expertly Developed Member Approved Master Plan seemed to make sense SINCE VIRTUALLY EVERY COMMUNITY WITH PARKS AND RECREATION HAS A MASTER PLAN. I really credit Gary Osier, who is now on the Long-Range Planning Committee, with making me a believer. I think any expert would do much better than what we are doing.

 

John, Do you know why the #35,000,000 worth of PIF projects on the list don't have to go through BP16?
Thanks
Janet
p.s. My friends from Nebraska were looking at houses in SC online after they returned home. I will keep my fingers crossed.

 

John, when the motion was first sent out to the LRP (who has been asking for it), I addressed Tom F. and Jim R. via email. We also addressed the issues in the last LRP meeting. There were agreed upon statements that were to be added to the motion, and they did not get added (I have a commitment from Tom F. in my email box relative). I for one, and I know others on the LRP, will not do any more work on a master plan until they commit in writing to the budget agreed upon for completing a master plan. Period. The work is to be done this year. It's part of LRP goals. Again, it's up to the Chairs and Board to correct what came out of the LRP (it should be in the meeting notes). Definitely not building trust departing from what was discussed and agreed upon in the LRP meeting about that (and one other) motion. That is for certain. I specifically told them I don't need a motion to develop a statement of work - I need the commitment of the budget in writing to turn over what I have developed already.

As for your concern that we "presented another Mt. View plan", that was not at all what it was - had you been present, you would have understood, it was just a history of the saga and the amenities discussed/what transpired over the years. I also agree that we can't just halt absolutely everything for the development of the Master Plan - so, in the scope/statement of work, I have included a priority on taking a look at Mt. View and the information we get from Tri-Arc to ensure we aren't missing opportunities there while it proceeds. We wouldn't be in this mess had the Board not decided on their OWN elements and that Lakeview was the dream place for a stand-alone PAC.
Don't sell the LRP short, please. Committees have swayed from the purpose initially intended. The Board control over membership that was just amended on 12/19/24 is partial evidence of that . . . I have experiences I can share also, relative.

 

Janet, my semi-agreement is like a mutual fund, past performance does not guarantee future returns.

 

Most mutual funds increase in value!