How We Spend Money Matters

Just reviewing a post that outlines pending PIF expenses and made me scratch my head and realize, with the current political climate, spending and expectations around income growth needs to be addressed immediately. The current economic climate does not support the wishlist of items listed below. The dog palace is not a community need and that $1.5 million can be applied elsewhere to cover expenses. What is BOP Golf for $1 million? From what I understand, it is a tournament setup designed for firefighters and police officers? This is what is outlined on the BOP Golf website. What is the money being used for?
I also have read the minutes from the Technology and the Communication Outreach committees. What I understand is a significant portion of the current operating system is antiquated and the process of bridging the old system with new software is a challenge. I read of great success and strides made to move forward with the integration of the software to include golf and RCSC payment system. If we truly want to be successful in marketing Sun City and have greater member outreach, doesn’t it also make sense to have a solid electronic footprint?
As the economic landscape is changing, I feel there’s a significant need to be prudent in the choices made in spending and directing of our resources. The technology infrastructure of the RCSC has been woefully inadequate for a long time. The committees are working diligently to make the most of what is available.
I look at community development needs as being tantamount to staying relevant to the members as well as those seeking their next step in living. Monies need to be spent for the benefit of the entirety of the community, not a special interest group. A million and a half dollars can provide Sun City residents with much needed support for community services in the form of relevant interactive media, integration of golf services and assessment payments, plus providing real time statistics for utilization. If the desire is to provide a 21st century experience when interacting with the RCSC, then we need to step up and provide 21st century technology that is not limited due to its age. The committees are doing a spectacular service to ensure the best possible outcomes are achieved, but there is so much more we could offer for our community and its members. Yes, it would require spending money. I feel the need to make the electronic footprint of the RCSC significantly better than it is today and it needs to be done sooner rather than later.

 

"Placeholders" CM, back in the day they were called "placeholders." My first experience with the term was for the South maintenance building. It needed to be replaced somewhere around 2010 after it had caught fire and burned. They were projecting $750k in replacement costs, it came in more than double that. The foolishness is they used that same $750k placeholder for those golf course maintenance sheds for the next ten years.

The 1.5 million dollar indoor dog arena number is yet another in the long list of placeholders. It's a number that has no basis with reality; it's just a number to make it look like it isn't that expensive. The word from the dog club was they wanted 10,000 square feet of air conditioned space and i heard at the last meeting the flooring at Mountain View isn't suitable. What is?

It was one of the reasons i posted the first 4 years from the PIF budget, especially now with the tariffs taking place, what kind of impact will that have? It's not a political question, it's a practical one that must be answered. What would an indoor dog arena do to our insurance rates? Our utility costs? Where in the world would we find the land to build it and the necessary parking space (dictated by county parking codes). All costs that must be factored as we try to finally get Mountain View on a forward path.

And to be very clear, there is no bigger screw up than how badly we (RCSC, GM and board) allowed our technology to fall so far behind. We began telling them as far back as 2010 it needed to be updated. They gave all the board members I-pads and thought that was a big deal and the guy that was the head of our technology got the job because he could reprogram them(?). Maybe he was better than that but you sure can't see it based on where we are today.

Digging out of that mess will take years and unfortunately as we dig out we fall further behind as advances keep pushing further forward. Whomever the board hires to replace the GM, they best set the perimeters/expectations of their job duties and then hold them accountable. That was the single most important job the board had to do, but as the GM rewrote our documents, she took total and absolute control.

No question, lots of work to do, and the best advice i can give them is to prioritize and don't be afraid to ask for help.

 

I was very bothered by place holders as I found them very misleading and deceptive. For example, In the SAC we learned that the current cost to construct a building is about $500 per square foot. As I did the math on the Dog Palace it worked out to $5M but only $1,5M was proposed for the PIF funding. Say what? My approach has always been that the estimated cost of projects placed on the PIF should reflect our best estimate of what it will cost to complete the project, and only fully funded projects should be included on the PIF project list. All other projects should be listed on a wish list.

 

So very true in regards to actual cost estimates. 10,000 square feet is an insanely expensive investment for a dedicated venue for a single club. With a clear need to be prudent in handling expenditures, a dedicated dog venue is too costly an endeavor. There exists a number of other needs that should be addressed soon and remove the dog venue from the PIF list as a consideration. The best monies would be spent to improve the technology as well as research and restore something that resembles a community newspaper. I know it’s an old fashioned way to communicate, but it was quite effective as a tool for reaching a greater audience than electronic media. Many people would appreciate the opportunity to have a local paper with information on Sun City available to them at least monthly. I don’t have any idea as to cost to include it with the Independent again, but member outreach is indeed needed and not everyone has electronic content available to them.

 

And that's what's behind BP-16! Lets stop making these wild-ass guess' that by the time it actually comes to building something the cost has doubled!

Not sure what the BP-16 Form will eventually look like but it also needs a time threshold set for the project so that the cost is still valid when the project actually begins.

 

John, I just spoke to a Senior Exec at a large general contracting firm - the average cost of a CMU building is $170-200/sq ft. $500 must get you a palace.

 

Where do you get the idea that the BP-16 Form will be changed? It's a reasoable form that gets at the data needed to make a sound decision.

The form does include an estimated construction start and completion date . . . so that should provide some info as to the viability of potential cost impact. But yes, good point.

 

To be honest, I haven't really looked to see what's currently in BP-16, but was going by the assumption that it was still being finessed?

 

From AI -
Around $490 per square foot
The average commercial construction cost in the United States is around $490 per square foot1. However, the price can range from as little as $70 to over $1,000, depending on the building type and location1.

This was in line with what Marlene estimated.

 

I seem to remember the number being kicked around for a PAC was $1000 sq.ft?

 

Question: SCHOA is a non-profit from my understanding. RCSC is as well I believe.

SCHOA does community partner outreach and offers an opportunity to advertise in their maps, community guides, etc. SCHOA's expense to produce these items is zero and in fact generates operating revenue for them through the use of soliciting advertising.

RCSC does none of these things. I know, as I am one of them who would love the opportunity to partner with RCSC through an opportunity to advertise as a way for them to fund their quarterly printed newsletters.

I had the opportunity to chat with a current board member recently regarding funding community printed communications through the use of advertising and they didn't seem to know why Rec Centers didn't allow this. Can anyone explain other than they just don't want partners?

 

Cheryl,
When the RCSC had printed news editions, called the Sun Views, we had advertisers who were regular participants and supporters of the printed media. In my opinion, as the costs to deliver the paper to each home grew, it provided an opportunity for the GM to exit the print media portion provided by the RCSC. I felt, and still do, the print media was a valuable tool in member communication and outreach. I believe keeping track of the advertisers and their ads, plus selling additional advertising became tedious and was decided to shut down a major part of the ability to involve the members in Community involvement. I know the big push is for electronic media, but there is something great about a tangible newspaper in your hands.
In the big picture, with offering ad space to local merchants to offset the cost of a deliverable news program within the Independent, the outreach for the members of the community is outstanding. People always looked forward to their copy of the Sun Views,, and it has been sorely missed by this community. I have been an advocate of restoring such an opportunity once again, and would love to see it return to a newspaper near all of us.

 

Communications by as many channels as possible is always better but involves expense and staffing.

 

It is expensive and more importantly if it isn't a defined goal with a set strategy, it's just something they do. The question becomes: Is it a priority? I can only smile over the number of times a potential candidate said one of their goals was better communication, and once elected, not much changed. It would seem to me far better for the board to set the policy regarding more effective communication and then have the staff and management team implement the policy.

This is where committee work becomes invaluable. This is how it used to work, with the committees working in concert with the board, making recommendations and even helping the staff implement the process. My first volunteer position was part of the communication committee and we met every month to help do the layout of the Sun Views. Not the most efficient use of time, but the final product was pretty good.

That was then, this is now, but i suspect there are dozens/hundreds of RCSC members with previous experience in all aspects of marketing/communication that are potential volunteers for 5-10 hours per month. John is right, there is no one right way and clearly there are ways that have better reach, but every thing we do should be an opportunity for member engagement.

Is tonight's Sun Bowl show an opportunity? Is every club with dedicated space an opportunity? Should every meeting/event be weighed as potential reach? We know they are finally getting their head out of the sand regarding social media; to what level of involvement and commitment? Structure, strategy and purpose...all weighed for effectiveness with outcomes determining expanding, or not.

We haven't thought that way in a very long time. We look at communication as something we do, not whether what we are doing works. It's what happens when it isn't a priority and doesn't have clearly set goals or benchmarks to meet. Suffice to say, we can do better, way better.

 

Over the last 10+ years, the link between the board of directors and the members has all but vanished. I remember being present at forums, designed by the board, where we were out in front of the members, eliciting two way conversations about the topic of the day. No gavels, no structure of formality and no set agenda. We were there to listen and talk about whatever the topic chosen for open discussion. The best ones we were involved in was the dog park forums. Okay, so the topic was forming a group to sponsor the dog park, but there was no specific agenda for time or scope of the discussion. The round robin discussion was useful, engaging and created a small circle of volunteers to work with the RCSC on making the dog park a reality.
There were other open forums as well, each one generating a greater sense of community and comradery amongst those that attended. Despite the pushback from other board members who were not enthusiastic about attending and participating in these forums, they were very successful in achieving a positive impact with the community. People still talk about their satisfaction with the meetings and the board members who took the time to participate. The time spent with the members mattered and made a lasting, positive impact on the community.
This type of community engagement is missing and it’s clear, it could sure use some support to make a comeback for the benefit of the membership.

 

Mountain View would be a wonderful opportunity to engage the community at large. Here is the idea. After the "stakeholders" have their meetings with the architect, let a random group of members who volunteer "red team" the conclusions before we go into conceptual design. These could be LRP members or others that volunteer. The red team would issue a report judging the qualitative aspects of the conclusions. The red team might ask to see the analysis of alternatives and the data that supports the choice recommended. They would kick the tires to make sure the final product provides the biggest bang for the buck. Your thoughts?

 

John,
I strongly believe that those wanting to be engaged with the Mountainview process are already engaged in whatever way looks good to them. I truly trust that the community at large will not be interested in what is happening at Mountainview. When it comes to the rec centers, any interest is usually around the members local center.
I feel the process around Mountainview is already heavily scrutinized by many. To add another group to the mix seems redundant and unnecessary. I personally feel Mountainview needs to move forward as soon as possible and stop trying to make it something that it can’t attain.
I truly thank you for your additional suggestions but feel anything that means additional review of Mountainview is overkill at this juncture. Just my opinion and thoughts.

 

Carole,

Thanks for the insights. My concern is the last time the player's club was left alone with an architect we started down a path to building something that was unaffordable and IMHO likely to be irrelevant. I know one board member who will not consider any alternative to a special purpose theater. But I totally get your point about moving forward. I would feel much more comfortable if we were operating under a strict budget of $15M and will only do whatever $15M will buy. Unfortunately, we tend to throw money at a project and lose sight of its value to the community. Juat my opinion.

 

John,

Thank you for enlightening me as to the desires of a particular board member and their focus in regards to Mountainview. This causes me serious concern as to the importance of board members being autonomous in regards to their motives for serving on the board in the first place. This is also a clear indication of not adhering to the fiduciary duty board members swear an oath to when sworn in. I don’t know nor do I care to know who this board member is. If this person has an ounce of integrity, they, themselves, will recuse themselves from any further consideration, discussion of or planning involved with the Mountainview remodel. I will say this, I have not been a fan of any addition of a performing arts department at MV. I could support the revamping of the gymnasium/theater area, but not some grandiose stand alone theatrical venue. The membership should not be on the hook for the costs of supporting such a venue. No more than a dog park indoors. Another ludicrous expenditure that someone is trying to push through rapidly. This item needs removal from the PIF list, and the motion for approval rescinded. The costs being foisted onto the RCSC are ultimately, the members, is a great concern to me.
There’s no nice way to say this, but the annual assessment will be increased, I just don’t have a crystal ball to predict how much. There has been too much maintenance and other needs that have been overlooked or ignored for far too long. It’s time to address these needs and place them in the forefront, get them addressed and if possible, scheduled. The LRP should have a good idea what is the priorities moving forward and should be able to provide a comprehensive plan for the board to review and vote on.
The continuing dance around the needs of the community needs to stop, and provide a clear framework for moving forward, then do it. In my opinion of course.

Please forgive the outburst, I apologize for my lack of decorum in this post. I am so very tired of the direction that some items have taken and don’t feel they are in the best interest of the members. I, too, am a member and as much as I dislike an increase in yearly assessments, the handwriting is on the wall. I want Sun City to be a glimmer of what it used to be. I am passionate about the importance of a community newspaper. I so want the members and the board to be on the same page moving forward. Yes, I have great hope for the future.

 

I don't know which Board member you are talking about wanting a special purpose theater. However he/she is only one vote out of nine. Also, no club should have special access to the architects. I don't use Mountain View often because I do not live close to it. However, this remodel/rebuild has drug on long enough. I think the Board should move ahead with the plan for it while, simultaneously, working on a long range master plan with a professional team.