What’s the catch on Title 33?

A op Ed piece today in the Independent wants SC to move from Title 10 to 33. What are the pros and cons please.

 

Title 33, Chapter 16 PLANNED COMMUNITIES .......................................................................................... 1

Article 1 General Provisions ...................................................................................................................... 1

33-1801. Applicability; exemption .......................................................................................................... 1

33-1802. Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 1

33-1803. Assessment limitations; penalties; notice to member of violation .......................................... 2

33-1804. Open meetings; exceptions .................................................................................................... 3

33-1805. Association financial and other records .................................................................................. 4

33-1806. Resale of units; information required; fees; civil penalty; definition ....................................... 5

33-1806.01. Rental property; member and agent information; fee; disclosure ..................................... 6

33-1807. Lien for assessments; priority; mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens...................................... 7

33-1808. Flag display; political signs; caution signs; for sale, rent or lease signs; political activities ... 8

33-1809. Parking; public service and public safety emergency vehicles; definition ............................ 10

33-1810. Board of directors; annual audit............................................................................................ 10

33-1811. Board of directors; contracts; conflict ................................................................................... 10

33-1812. Proxies; absentee ballots; definition ..................................................................................... 11

33-1813. Removal of board member; special meeting ........................................................................ 11

33-1814. Slum property; professional management ............................................................................ 12

33-1815. Association authority; commercial signage .......................................................................... 12

33-1816. Solar energy devices; reasonable restrictions; fees and costs ............................................ 13

33-1817. Declaration amendment; design, architectural committees; review ..................................... 13

33-1818. Community authority over public roadways; applicability ..................................................... 14

 

As seen in the above posted titles to do with Title 33 and the actions it governs, there’s a lot more government in your day to day living. I didn’t post each section due to space, but the title lines indicate the level of authority the association has over the community. Not saying good or bad, just it can make for an uncomfortable situation for all concerned. All actions are regulated by the Arizona Revised Statutes and are expected to be followed and enforced by the RCSCW.

 

I for one, when reviewing the topics being governed, I felt grateful to be in a Title 10 community. Sun City has its place within the 55+ communities, by golly, it was the original. By the same token, I don’t need to be legislated as to how to live in my community. My husband read out loud to me some of the commentary in the Independent this past week. I started laughing at the fact that some people have decided to pick and choose the language of the Title to make it fit their narrative. So, per person assessment. Sounds good at the onset, until you are the couple and now pay twice the yearly assessment because you are married. Or add a name to the deed, you now pay for that. How about legislating flag display? There are strict rules over which flags can be displayed in a yard. Supposed you bought on of those cute little flags people put in their yard that sat “Happy Spring “. Too bad, not on the approved list. Let’s say you have company come and visit for a week and they park their car in the driveway. Your neighbor can turn you in for having a car in your driveway for an excessive amount of allowed time. There are designated times for how early one can place signage for political purposes and when they are to be removed. There is also a limit as to how many signs you can place in your yard. The mandatory copies of what must be given to a potential purchaser of your home is spelled out as well as the fact you, the homeowner will pay $400 each time this collection of paperwork needs to be completed. In other words, if you go under contract to sell your house, and the contract falls through, you get to go through the process again for the next time the house goes under contract. Another $400.
There also appears to be a built in escalation of assessment fees to match predicted costs, but was not able to pinpoint how assessment of member dues were calculated. They seem to be assessed in accordance with predicted expenses but I don’t know for sure this is a true statement or not.
Just a few of the differences I noticed off the top. I am quite confident there are more.

 

I don't know much about Title 33, however SC went to per rooftop assessment from per person in 2003. We are the only Webb community that does that. It affects the spouse left behind when someone dies. Not only do they lose half the meager SSI income but they are still paying for their deceased spouse (in a way). I asked why we changed from per person to per roof top and was told it was too hard to keep track of people who die. So that means the 37 or so other Webb communities are smarter/more sophisticated than we are?

Larry I don't know if you remember Anne Randall Stewart who fought like hell to change SC to Title 33. She took a great deal of grief, name calling etc., and lost. Tom McClain was a supporter of hers and helped her a lot. I could not as I was working full time and taking care of my parents. Any way you can google her, I believe "the Anne Report" is still available online to view. It explains a lot. The other thing I found curious is Bill recently said on this site:

"Agreed John and it is interesting to note Sun City West elected to operate under Title 33 rather than Title 10. There was a fascinating struggle circa 1998-2000 where a community action group, SWOOG, formed and rather than getting into a lengthy and expensive court battle, they just agreed to follow Title 33 which features a much more transparent and open style of governance.
We decided to fight it, and hence, we are where we are and they are where they are."
BPearson, Saturday at 12:04 PM

I will reach out to Anne for more info, however last time I spoke with her, her husband had just passed and she was not taking any callers.

 

The part about flags is a list that you cannot ban. US, AZ, Indian Nations, Branch of the military, Gadsden, Pine tree, Betsy Ross, POW-MIA. You could fly other flags unless the RCSC in this case would ban them. Most places stick to only allowing the flags on the can't ban list. Don't want to see the stars and bars or a swastika.

By the way, NO proxies under 33.

 

The Planned Communities Act was passed because of the explosion of developments and at times out of control actions by developers and the subsequent boards governing them. Sun City was opened in 1960, long before the Act was passed and they functioned under Title 10 Corporations and Associations. 10 is much more flexible and allows the governing documents to determine how they function.

Title 33 is much more exacting. The argument was often stated, under Title 33 it is much easier to sue the Association for not following the letter of the law as defined in 33. One quick example; 383 of the 384 HOA's fall under Title 33 and based on the number of units in the HOA, there are varying requirements for the board regarding documents given to buyers at or before purchase. The smaller units have some latitude, the larger ones are mandatory.

Another example that was interesting was while serving on the RCSC board, we were going to hold a joint meeting between our board and the Sun City West board. Our board/GM wanted the meeting to be between just the two organizations. The Sun City West board (who use Title 33), told us it had to be an open meeting with their members invited to attend. Our board/GM wasn't happy about it, but we held the open meeting and much to no one's surprise everyone survived the ordeal of transparency.

There's a number of other examples and the former, former, former GM argued under Title 33 costs would rise dramatically given the obligations that came with administering the provisions defined under the Planned Communities Act. That may or not be true, but we know the costs in Sun City West have gone up faster than in Sun City. Part of that is due the per person/per property assessment. And to be clear, how that assessment is set isn't a function of Title 33 but at the discretion of the governing body.

 

If we kept the per person assessment like every other Webb community, wouldn't we have more $$? The per person assessment is much more fair than per rooftop, but I know that's a moot point. Here are your thoughts on SCW from Jan 2025. Does anyone know what they want? There is a lot more.

Thanks SCG, solid comments and this SCW history is worth a quick refresh. I had sent a reply to a group of us emailing back and forth and rather than typing it anew, i am cutting and pasting portions of it:
"For those who aren't familiar with SCW history, here's a quick down and dirty. In the late 90's a group was formed called SCWOOG (i think the acronym was short for Sun City West organization for open governance). You can still find articles online (i think). It got nasty, but unlike here in Sun City they sat down with those leading the fight and agreed the best outcome was to follow Title 33.

Title 33 is easier for people to sue because it has fixed obligations while Title 10 allows organizations more freedom to do what they want (as long as they follow their documents).

Anyway, SCW came out of the fight for the better. Some years after the transition the board/management decided they needed better training for potential community leaders. They started the TORCH program, a 7 week scheduled class of how the community works and what potential leaders need to know. Their goal is two sessions per year where they graduate 90-100 members per year. It's been running for 16 or 17 years. That's well over a 1000 members.

In 2023 every one of their 9 board members had gone through TORCH. Plus across the community, organizations and clubs were filled with graduates. It was a structure built to succeed and thrive off of well trained people who weren't just shoved into a position and hoped they did good. As Ben said to me over coffee one day, Title 33 is no big deal as long as you follow it. He was a county commissioner in WI for 22 years and everything they did was an open book.

There's also a significant difference in SCW from SC. For years the RCSW paid PORA (their version of SCHOA) to send first letters for CC&R violations. They had no real governing authority, as unlike Sun City, their CC&R's were included in the RCSCW documents. Adjudication of violations ultimately went back to the SCW board, which included taking away privileges of membership if CC&R complaints weren't addressed. As you all know SCHOA is free-standing and our only ability is to take owners to court (a very expensive proposition). Most other age-restricted communities have adopted the SCW version with a single entity governance structure. It's quicker, cleaner and far easier to administrate.

There is nothing to prevent the RCSC from starting a program like TORCH. The biggest reason not to is more about control (in my opinion), as management would find themselves in a wholly different position if the board members were trained and then actually held the general manager accountable. They used to (before 2006) but with the new gm hired in 06, over the years they gave her almost complete autonomy to govern as she saw fit.

These are not new comments from me and to be clear, i blame all of us who were board members who let it happen. Much like the current GM, she felt she can do a better job for the membership without the board sticking their nose into his/her business. That's simply not how we were built, and more importantly not why we were so successful.

While it's easy to look at the SCW structure as being better, they too have shared in the pain of late. Recall petitions, GM released and spiking prices are part and parcel of our unique system of self-governance. As we talk often, there's nothing easy about running your community. What i can say without question, with no training makes it even that much more difficult.

BPearson, Jan 3, 2025

 

I know people like to just say stuff without knowing the facts, so let's clear up this misnomer: "Sun City is the only community that charges per household." The Grand (formerly Sun City Grand a Del Webb built property) is per household, not per person. AND, the granddaddy of them all (size-wise) The Villages of Florida is per property, not per person. Sorry, not wasting my time looking for others.

If i had my preference (i don't and never will regarding this matter), i would rather we stayed per person. Changing it now is nearly impossible. One of the reasons Sun City West's costs have risen faster than Sun City's may be because they attract more single owners. I know at one point in their information dump on one of projections they did, they showed 40% plus single owners. Less revenue comes from a rooftop with a single owner than a rooftop with a couple when charging per person.

 

I believe I said "Webb Community". Many of the original Webb communities have dropped the Del Webb, as in SCW, The Grand, and The Villages. Chris posted a chart a while ago which I will look for, that showed the communities that charge Per Person and Per Roof Top. I'm a little surprised Bill; with the number of times you have admonished me for misquoting you.

 

It's old, but here it is. 2022-01-Sun-City-AZ-Annual-Resident-Fees.pdf

 

The chart shows nothing about whether a community charges per person or per property, it simply is the total of what two qualifying card members would pay for the year. The Grand opened as Del Webb's Sun City Grand and only recently changed their name to "The Grand," hence the quotation marks. Last but not least, The Villages of Florida was never a Del Webb property and was owned by the Morse family (and still is).

The comment has been made several times over the years, Sun City was the only senior community charging on a per property basis; which is simply not the case.

 

Bill,
Title of the chart:
2022 Comparable Community Fees
Annual per property to 2 qualified owners

 

You know better. It says right on top "per two qualified owners".

 

He knows better. You would think that response would be beneath him.

 

I read the title eyes and it doesn't define whether it is per property or per person...it is simply the cost of two residents living in the house and what they would pay. Look at the chart and compare the cost of Sun City, Sun City West and Sun City Grand. Sun City and Sun City Grand are both per property, Sun City West is per person. My only point is you cannot tell which communities are per person or per property by looking at the chart.

I understand why they did it the way they did; so they were comparing apples to apples. The problem for Sun City West (but not for the single buyer) is when it is per person, they get half of the assessment. What i/we cannot tell from the chart is how many other communities are per person, maybe all, maybe some, maybe none other than Sun City West

 

The asterisk has been removed from that slide Bill. You know that. It's amazing to see how far you will go to prove you are right.

BPearson said↑
As always josie your comments are anything but reflective of what anyone is saying. Little in life is black and white like you want it to be. If the question has already been litigated you are just blowing smoke. I read the settlement when it came out and as Emily mentioned it seems to me to have included this issue. You can find it easily enough on line. See for yourself, don't take my word for it.

Beyond that, my preference was they had never made the change from per person in 2003. Had anyone looked at the history, in all likelihood they may have opted to stay on a per person basis. Not that those first couple of years were the perfect comparison but they were close enough for anyone looking to at least question the value of doing what they did.

Arguing for or against is an exercise in futility if there isn't a workable solution for the problem. It would be like me arguing the president should be elected by the popular vote. That idea makes perfect sense (to me), except it's not what our documents call for.
Jesus Bill you are so tiring. I said that to emily in the above post, but you just want any reason to poke the bear. If a solution is not looked for how will we know if there is one. Take the blinders off. Mr Bethany also proved the board will never change. He just blew right by the assessment fee discrepancy. He didn't lie, but he sure did not tell the truth. The slide was incorrect or the little asterisk was hidden to show how many our fee was for.

Josie P, Oct 22, 2024E

 

The original slide had this as a footnote

You have to read and understand footnotes.

Owner Member Dues* $497

Footnote:

* Per Person
** Per Person Per Day
etc.

Josie P, Feb 2, 2024

 

Bill,
You wrote, “The problem for Sun City West (but not for the single buyer) is when it is per person, they get half of the assessment.”

Not so…there’s no half assessment, full amount per person: EVERY person pays the same amount, that’s equality AND fairly generates necessary funds to operate their recreational facilities.

Sun City West Fees
MEMBERSHIP FEES/Golf Cards - EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2024 - JUNE 30, 2025
Owner Member Dues - annual per person on Deed $ 570.00

Complete list:
https://suncitywest.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Membership-Fee-Schedule-2022-23-1.pdf

 

And then there is this

Phoenix Retirement Community HOA Fees Update 2024

This thread is the reason I don't like Sun City. You can't trust the Leaders/Representatives/Board/Committee Volunteers (whatever you want to call them). Bill is arguing against what he knows to be true. The slide was altered, I had to explain what the asterisks were to someone. Then the libraries, PAC, T-Bird, Website (where did that 300k go anyway?). Also, this is not the first time Board documents have been altered. How am I, the whiner in the cheap seats, supposed to feel good about this community?


How about the real story. Prior to this incident Kat Fimmel had told me she edited out comments from SAC meeting videos as well. She had also eliminated, without my knowledge, motions that I would have liked to make. I believe Anita Borski told me Kat had said the same thing to her, but this would be hearsay. The incident in question went down like this: Director Nichols said he did not put much faith in what was said on social media. President Fimmel gratuitously made the comment that it is good to see the chairman of the technology committee hates technology. You are right this drew an instant laugh. People, like yourself, love to see the President of the Board make fun of other Directors. Immediately after the meeting Director Nichols resigned as chairman of the technology committee. Shortly after the meeting Director Nichols was meeting with Kevin McCurdy and invited President Fimmel to join the meeting. While sitting there President Fimmel received a return call from Alan Kleinham in which she instructed him to edit out her snide remark from the tape. Mr Klienham was very troubled by the request and called fellow a fellow employee to see what he should do. They advised him not to edit the tape. He ultimately decided he had no choice but to comply with the President's orders and edited the tape. When the tape was posted Director Nichols reviewed it and realized it had been edited. He called me and asked that I too confirm the tape was edited. I reviewed it and it was clear that the tape had been altered. He wrote to the Board that it was unethical for a Board member to alter Corporate Records. Realizing she was caught President Fimmel, made up a statement regarding the incident and read it at a Board meeting. This is much like we are seeing with the library debacle. A factually correct article about the incident was published by the Independent. Director Nichols also proposed to make an amendment to the Bylaws stating clearly that this type of action would result in suspension from the Board. For my two cents, I was very confident this was a pattern of behavior that violated Arizona law and could be prosecuted. Out of respect for the institution of the Board, the matter was allowed to drop.

John Fast, Apr 12, 2024