Where do we go from here?

After far too many years of watching us "evolve," it would be easy to say, enough is enough. Is it time to turn my back, close my eyes and just enjoy what's left of my golden years? Yes would be the easy answer, and the answer i suspect some would appreciate.

For those who would prefer i just go away, sorry, not happening. Not built that way and frankly, those who refuse to acknowledge or understand our history, are just wrong-headed in their thinking. One only has to look at the hard turn we took in 2006 and then ask yourself: How did pushing members away work out for us?

It didn't, and i defy anyone reading this show me/prove i am wrong. In the world of reality, everything is ultimately defined or judged by the outcomes. We can dream or rationalize away how by electing to keep everything cheap, we were better off. Were we?

Are the multitude of challenges a good thing? We can laughingly call them character builders, but if we are to be honest, they are just shit-show outcomes we need to try and fix. Where do you want to start: Technology? Golf? Members paying little or no attention? Difficulty finding management that works? Inadequate training for board members? Committees that feel disenfranchised? The ongoing Mountain View saga?

With all of that, i'll be the first to admit, the board is doing better. That said, is there anyone reading this who thinks the gang of nine can fix all of these problems...by themselves? I don't, the sheer volume is staggering and if the board elects to rely on management and their skills alone, they are doomed to failure (IMHO).

Rather than fading away, i am going to keep harping/preaching and writing the solutions have to include involving the membership. Without them, any efforts will continue to ebb and flow as board members come and go. Some will be better, some will be worse, some will be the same; in the end, they will be overwhelmed by what we are asking/expecting them to do.

Our history is pretty clear when it comes to telling us what worked...and what didn't.

As always, just one man's opinion.

 

I think the first real indication of what direction we will be going in will be once the latest and greatest revision of the bylaws are made public.

Will the number of pages be reduced or expanded, and will it give the Members more freedoms or more restrictions?

Personally, I don't necessarily like the fact that 4 Directors are involved as Chair and Co-Chair in that committee/working group, and who knows how many other Directors show-up and attend those committee meetings. I've attended too many committee meetings where the Chair and Co-Chair steers the direction of the committee rather than allowing the committee members steer the direction!

So,... the first thing I will be looking for in the bylaws will be the requirement that only one Director need be involved. Preferably, that Director can serve as either the Chair or the Co-Chair with a Member filling the remaining position.

We should know in September!

 

IMHO Bill is absolutely correct. Members can make any idea a success or failure. They must be involved and committed to making it work. In addition to FYI's litmus test in regard to the bylaws, I would suggest that the conceptual layout of Mountainview will also be a big test. If the elements of MV are basically the same as what Director Kise presented at the MountainView Town hall with no explanation of why the data supports this as the best option, IMHO one could conclude that the member involvement process was a ruse to "validate" what the board was going to do anyway. If on the other hand the layout is significantly different and the architects can explain why the data supports the recreational investment in the layout then, IMHO, the process (i.e. the members) really impacted the result. We shall see.

 

I feel small group gatherings, inviting members to come and share their thoughts about the community or just hang out and listen, could be helpful, and have them at various rec centers at various times. Perhaps consider a theme, or not, but allow them to feel listened to and appreciated for their time. The feedback should be shared with the board members so they know what is needed and what the members are asking for.
Just a small suggestion for a way to reach out to the members where they live.

 

As I read the list compiled of issues that need to be addressed, these are all topics we have talked about and addressed here on TOSC. We have discussed possible solutions to the ongoing issues and offered numerous solutions. Most of the options offered are able to be incorporated into reality if the board chose one of the options.
I am going to say something not of popular opinion, but I think could be a real possibility for thought. The Mountainview project is not going to be a test of membership involvement when the plans are revealed. The location of the center has it in the far reaches of the community and the center itself is small. It’s always been a community center designed for the members who live closest and can use the amenities of that location. The fact that this has dragged on for so many years is a shame for the local residents who use the center. The populace of Sun City, for the most part, don’t even know where this center is located. What the members do care about is what is all of this remodeling and revamping going to cost me in my yearly assessment. The plans and concept presentation are for the benefit of those who use the center. The implementation of a theatre and special seating for hosting events is rather pie in the sky because Maricopa County is not going to relax the parking restrictions.
The topics of technology, or lack there of, is one that affects the entire membership, especially when it’s woefully inadequate or not meeting the standards of the present day society.
Finding appropriate management for the RCSC seems to be somewhat of a challenge, but am hopeful the board will seek appropriate resources and strategies for the next administration. ADWR is a huge part of what this community needs to address and find solutions that will be useful and cost effective. Finding ways to get the best candidates to run for board positions is going to be a challenge, as the standard model of retirement is not what it once was. Many can’t or will not be able to retire fully and be available to take on a full time role of a board member.
While MV is an ongoing challenge, it needs to be brought to a productive conclusion so other issues can be considered. This has drawn out for far too long due to special interests trying to create something untenable.
I don’t feel, IMHO, that MV has any great opportunity to build a consensus among the membership. At this rate, will it ever be done? I realize some hold MV deeply in their hearts, but it’s time to make the best decision and move forward. Otherwise, imho, the debate will continue forever.
I understand what I wrote is strictly my opinion, and don’t hold any one accountable for what I say.

 

It almost doesn't matter...
When i ran for the RCSC board in 2011, i argued at the very least an RCSC candidate should be compelled to read Jubilee, Sun City's 25th Anniversary book. The idea was scoffed at; what, me read? There was a reason for the straight-forward suggestion. Had candidates read it they would at least know this:
* By the end of 1960, members had voted to accept Community Center (Oakmont) from DEVCO.
* By the end of 1963, there were three distinct organizations and all had large number of member candidates running for open positions.
* In 1964, in the only vote ever taken, those living here, voted down incorporation by a 2/1 margin.
* In 1965 members voted to accept Town Hall (Fairway) from DEVCO.
* In 1968, DEVCO planned to move north of Grand Ave but only if a member vote was taken to merge into one single entity; thus insuring every member would have access to every center the company would open.
* In 1973 the infighting over school bond issues was fierce and member actions resulted in Sun City being removed from the Peoria school district. 17 times (out of 16) members voted down bond issues.
* In 1983, RCSC member/resident Betty Pearlman started a petition to secure an age overlay in deed restrictions. Within a months time more than 70% of those living in Sun City signed it, enshrining it in our documents and insuring Sun City didn't fall victim like Youngtown did to losing their age overlay.

There's more, way more, but you get the picture: Sun City, while DEVCO did the heavy lifting, was shaped by Sun City residents who took ownership of the process of self-governance. It wasn't just board's it was members/those living here who made it work.

Fast forward, to just the past couple of years (i could go back to 2006 and make it worse), but let's just consider two events where the board asked/invited the membership to get involved:
* Let's start with the Strategic Alternatives Committee (SAC). I would and did argue this was a brilliant step/returning to our roots. Everything was in place and members were going to be the defining difference. In spite of a rough start, by the committees end, Marlene's Plan M had emerged and looked like we were positioned to move forward. And then it all turned to crap. We could argue why, suffice to say a couple of folks weren't happy with the outcome.
* Even more flawed was the Bylaws re-write coming out of our first membership meeting in 12 years. The board/RCSC attorney told the membership they had no right to vote on the bylaws they brought forward (sound familiar?). They shuffled everything off to a bylaws committee with 5 residents and a couple of board members. It was an acrimonious exercise but the finished product was put before the membership. It was better than what we had, but less than what we wanted. It was voted down by the board, two board members were angry and it was defeated because of their angst.

I have to ask, do you recognize the pattern? Historically we trusted the membership with the most difficult questions/issues facing the community. In the past several years, when we invited members to participate, when the outcomes weren't what board members wanted, they voted the actions down. It all begs the question: Why bother asking members to participate if you aren't willing to support their efforts?

That's why i say, it almost doesn't matter what we ask/invite/challenge members to get involved in. What matters is when we do, do we trust them to do what's right for the community/RCSC? Of late, that hasn't been the case, not even close, and i would argue a reason why there is a lack of trust from those of us not living in the towers of leadership/management.

As always, just one man's opinion, but in this case backed up with the historical perspective and data available.

 

I really like the ideas and enthusiasm you all bring to the table. I am very concerned about MountainView but hope my concerns turn out to be unfounded. Too often I have heard the only rationale for major capital decisions is we decided. That dog don't hunt in my woods. I need to understand the big picture and data before I can support the expenditure of +/- $28M. We all know the board, not the architect or members, is making the decision about what is included in Mountainview. IMHO it is up to Board to address the larger issues of overcapacity, marketability, assessment impact, correlative effects etc. We shall see. As always, one man's opinion.

 

Let's talk bluntly about the Mountain View renovation. I know John's sentiments as he has remained consistent from the days he was outspoken about the folly of the 40-50 million dollar, 8 year, 3 phase project. Suffice to say, it was nuts to even consider.

Anyone who survived SAC and at least paid attention, knows the infighting over who needed or got what they wanted was fierce. For my part, i was pretty ambivalent, other than whatever was done, needed to make sense...and was affordable. The damn center should have been rebuilt long before the Grand Center was done, but that's another topic for another day.

The elephant in the room, has been and most likely always will be the PAC. The Performing Arts Theater has been on the books (DEVCO's) since 1976. The plan was for an 1800 seat theater on the corner of 99th and Bell Road. As the Bell Center was being planed, Meeker and a host of others was meeting with some potential theater users (18 groups in total) and as all things Meeker did, it was grandiose.

The Bell Center overruns exploded past 5 million dollars, before any ground was moved for the theater and was consequently dropped from the plans. It's reported the RCSC was delighted when that happened because upon completion, they would have become the owners. In Meeker interviews he stated someday Sun City would finally get the PAC.

In the early 2000's the Players were aggressively pursuing something better than the Mountain View auditorium. It had long been their home and had outlived any sense of it being a comfortable venue. The stage was too small, little in the way of dressing rooms, storage was bad and members hated the folding chairs they sat on.

The bigger problem was boards/management struggled to buy into building a single purpose venue. Before readers gets too excited, anyone who has been paying attention knows, more than just the Players would use a fixed-seat setting. Yes others would benefit from it. No one is quite sure how much. Karen McAdam during the November fiasco claimed a new center atop the Lakeview greens could be used as much as 70% plus of the time (she said other senior community's with fixed seat venues had that kind of utilization).

Which brings us back to Mountain View. The pickleball-mania for an indoor venue has died. There are those clamoring for an indoor dog arena; pipe dream in my estimation and the pool with a fitness area similar to Marinette, should be a given. The rub still goes back to how to resolve the Players (and others) need for fixed, sloped seating where our tired old butts can relax comfortably?

Several folks have questioned 10 years from now whether the Players and plays will still be a thing? It's a fair question, as much as 10 years from now, will we need 8 golf courses we have just dumped 50 million dollars into? Oddly, no one is asking that question. Will we still need 7 lawn bowling greens (i say no)? I'm sure you get the picture because virtually everything on the table at MV is really a reflection about big picture Sun City.

Which brings us back to the whole master plan deal. What are Sun City's needs/what will they be 10 years from now? We know, boards nor management have been that strategic in either their thinking or planning. They should be, but the very nature of Sun City is such, board's tend to think in terms of their time serving on the board and God only knows what management thinks?

For my money, i've come to support the idea of collapsible seating. It allows us the flexibility of using the venue beyond performances. The technology is pretty advanced these days to be easy to operate and comfortable at the same time. In conjunction with that, we need to solve/resolve all of the flat space under-utilization. Buildings sitting empty for the majority of our open hours is just poor planing (in my mind).

The problem of course is if the old auditorium is plowed under, no matter what they build and how the seating is constructed, it will be expensive. There is no such thing as cheap any longer. Based on what i heard from triArc, the old building is not salvageable. If that's the case, hold on to your hats. Justifying the costs, will be a crap-shoot as some will undoubtedly think any money spent is money wasted.

I'm not one of those. Mountain View needs to get done so we can move forward. I'm not so interested in doing it on the cheap as i am interested in building something the community will use for the next 50 years.

 

Kind of a sore subject with me!

I never liked the idea of purchasing the Grand property in the first place. Why would a community that has no ability to grow its population need to grow the number of recreation centers?

It's just my opinion but I believe when the number$ $tart coming in you will see a major scale back of the amenities that will be at Mountain View.

And the elephant in the room, IMHO, is that Fairway is only 0.8 tenths of a mile away from the Mountain View location with everything you need as far as fitness, pools, walking tracks, social rooms and even some Clubs.

As we can plainly see, time is NOT on our side when it comes to costs!

 

FYI, the main reason that the Grand property was purchased was to finally give the car club the space they wanted. True to form, once construction started they wanted changes, like the ability to worked on their heavily armed recreation vehicles. Which then caused at least one door to be reconfigured. Of course this was followed by AC and they have recently come forward with requests costing $1M they want RCSC to pay for.

 

I have no clue about what tri-arc is actually discussing for MV. I still believe an indoor pickleball facility is the way to go at MV. I also like the idea of retractable seating in a multi-purpose facility. I am still asking about the need for 8 golf courses in Sun City given the financial constraints and unknowns. Lot of golf supporters amongst the board of directors so I do understand.

 

First of all, I do believe that the car club was quite satisfied with the Skilled Trades building located behind the bowling alley.
Secondly, the large door was in the original plans, however, Chris made the decision to change the door size, which by the way, the door size he wanted wasn't even a standard size door!
Thirdly, air-conditioning was in the original plans and budget for the building, but when they had to reconfigure the masonry to accommodate back to the original specified larger door, they no longer had enough in the budget for the A/C.

That's the story I've been told by members of the Vintage Vehicle Club.

 

Even though I am a member of the VVSC club and enjoy the facility immensely I completely understand that it does not make sense to add property when the property you already have is underutilized and in poor condition. There are two ways I "rationalize" Grand. First, the cost was $8M so it did not break the bank. Second, if interest in working on vehicles wanes, the space is ideal for a maintenance garage for RCSC. Right now, the VVSC membership is in the high 400s (and has been as high as 700) so the space is being used quite extensively year-round. So at least there is some data and rationale behind the decision. Personally, I agree with Tom that an indoor athletic facility would be more appealing to existing and prospective members than a theater. It would also be significantly less expensive to build and maintain. As I research newer age restricted communities under development, none of them are investing in special purpose theaters or air-conditioned dog parks.

 

Story serves their purpose, accurate but not necessarily truthful. I will leave it at that. For the record, the purchase happened when my VISTA buddy and myself were tripping through Europe for seven weeks in January and February of 2017. I learned of the purchase upon my return and the subsequent issues.

Best item I brought back was a two bottles of 20 year old balsamic vinegar from the Central Grocery in Florence. A small pour of that over sliced strawberries on Tillamook vanilla ice cream is heaven on earth. Still have half a bottle left.

 

John I would like to see at MV both indoor pickleball and a multi-purpose facility for the performing arts. I think it can be done?

 

Tom, I hope you input into the TriArc analysis.

 

I think this discussion illustrates the crux of the problem. On this thread I see several visionaries who are entirely committed to the success of their community, and nobody has a clue what is really happening. What is being debated? What are the pros and cons? What are the costs and benefits? I accept full responsibility for the wild west nature of the SAC which I alone initiated. For my part, I facilitated and listened but did not guide or direct the SAC. One of the purposes of the SAC was to inform as many members as possible what the debate was all about. Another major purpose was to expose (for the first time) the actual utilization data. For those board members willing to listen, it also provided a way to make an informed decision. As Bill notes, certain board members began with their mind made up, so they had to hijack the process to get their way.

Any lessons learned? Yes, for me and no for others. So here we may be back to where we started. Members may be presented with the "final answer" and the explanation from someone that this is what the members wanted. But here is the rub for me: VPN. While I am not a fan of her carefully crafted communications, I have this strange feeling there is a slight possibility she may actually be different, and she may realize that success of any multiyear renovation plan relies on a "majority" of the members that care endorsing the plan. She has been nothing but rude and condescending to me and personally I could care less. As far as I know she does the work. She shows up and stands up. She also exhibits something I find lacking in the rest of the board: Humility. In her words I find encouraging glimpses of the philosophy look guys none of us have done anything like this but together we can figure it out. If more were like my image of her, I might not have had to sue the RCSC board to assert members right to vote.

Just one man's opinion, eh?

 

First, I agree with FYI’s statement that everything needed is already at Fairway. Keep the remodel of MV simple to meet the needs of the local users. Nothing splashy or overly complicated. I still don’t understand the reason for a theater in the far reaches of the community? Isn’t there more space to accommodate groups At Sundial? The logic that other groups besides the players would use it seems odd. We have Sundial and Fairway, why spend more money to create more of the same? I know I am apparently not seeing the big picture because I still can’t get my head around some of the expenses associated with this project.
Second I don’t know who or what VPN is, but if this is some sort of special interest group that can run the costs of the MV remodel beyond what should be acceptable, it seems to me it needs to be brought out in the open and quashed. Special interests have caused the delay of the remodeling process almost 5 years delay, and the costs are rising exponentially. The longer the delay, the greater the cost. Plus the ADWR is not going to wait on the sidelines for the RCSC compliance. There’s not enough money to cover everything that’s needed to be done. I did say need, wanted is not an option anymore.
I am not for yearly assessments hitting four digits, but the more these delays continue, that’s the direction we are heading. In my opinion

 

I believe it stands for Vice President Nettesheim?

 

It can't and it's part of the reason for the chaos. Let's start with the data that matters:
Mountain View footprint: 6.5 acres,
Marinette footprint: 8.48 acres.

With that out of the way and for anyone paying attention during SAC, the question was asked why not enclose the 8 Marinette covered pickelball courts and be done with it. Turns out that 30,000 sq ft pavilion, if enclosed would require some additional parking spaces...if memory serves me, 150 of them. I think the argument was made they could squash down the non-playable areas to something in the 24,000 sq, but still a boatload of parking spaces they cannot manufacture.

All of which screams at the laughable proposed 40-50 million dollar, 8 year, 3 phase Mountain View plan. It simply wasn't possible. I know some talked about building a multi floor parking garage, but the costs of that were astronomical. Mountain View will have some sort of fitness/changing rooms next to the pool, that's a given. Some have called for two stories, which doubles the enclosed footprint which doubles the parking (10,000-20,000 sq).

Then throw in a new auditorium/PAC coming in around 10,000-12,000 sq and next to it, that 24,000-30,000 sq enclosed pickleball courts and another dozen outdoor courts and the remaining footprint for parking doesn't work. It's just math and sadly as all these grandiose plans were proposed, we ignored the one given...the county mandates parking requirements based on indoor square footage.

Marinette, with the clay club building, small auditorium and attached club space is very small, compared to what everyone wants to see at Mountain View. Yet the footprint is 25% larger than MV. What it comes down to is what can actually fit on the property and still meet parking requirement codes? Oh yeah and the even more pesky; what can we afford?

The basic debate that no one (other than John) wants to have is; do we really need a theater? I would argue we need a venue for them and others that would use it. I know and have read all the cries to just convert the Sundial auditorium. I also know those same folks don't want the discussion about displacing all those who use the space.

The Sundial auditorium is the one single flat space that gets the most use (more than 60% if memory serves me). And, it's the one large flat space that suits bigger capacity events. We already know how line dancers (a very large club) hates getting bumped by RCSC meetings. We already know the Men's Club Bingo Thursday nights use almost the entire space and, has generated hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations for organizations in Sun City over the years. For the Players to work around those scheduling (and way more) issues is crazy.

I suspect there will come a time when Lakeview has been remodeled where there will be a second large venue for big scale events. That's 10 years or more down the road. We also know, whatever gets built at Mountain View and the auditorium is closed, the Players will be looking for a temporary home. During SAC, i heard wildly crazy suggestions with extraordinary costs to house them.

The point is, no matter what happens, the future decisions will have a ripple impact across the community. It's why a master plan is needed, because every decision/action creates challenges everywhere else in the community. We far too long been short-sighted in that regard.