Where do we go from here?

I thought it was some sort of computer thing for safe surfing and communications. There’s a commercial I have seen on TV regarding the use of Safari as a VPN for security. I may be wrong since I am a not a real computer person.

 

Am certainly getting tired of the rehash, but parking for facility would be increased by eliminating the lawn bowl court at MV and dedicate the space for parking. Also depending on how structured an indoor pickleball facility may not need so much parking. I am again getting the impression that certain items for MV have been decided. Such a shame.

 

I'm sure no one will agree but here goes. Level the place. Build a PAC, 25 pickleball courts with a small building the size of the lawn bowling building at Bell. Everything else that was there is repeated at other rec centers. May leave enough vacant land for the next fad(?) people may want.

 

BILL - THANK YOU! VPN stands for Vice President Nettesheim. Look, I spent a solid year of my life on this thing, and I can tell you that you are one of the few that gets it. If you look at the latest board agenda, you will see the golfers are at it again. $100,000 for North Golf Course design so lousy golfers can get out of sand traps, and we have yet to name a director of golf to replace the one that quit over the exorbitant 9-hole executive golf course QR redo (Over $6M). BTW - PK presented this as a project in progress but it was certainly not a project I had heard of when on the Board. Sorry, that dog don't hunt in my woods. Have someone from the LRP stand up, present the data and recommend this.

And yet the guy who wants to spend $100k of my money on his golf courses objects to having a master plan because they are nothing but fluff. Go figure!

In summary, people I don't know have walked up and thanked me for filing a lawsuit against what they view as a crooked system. Thanks to all of you! Steve Collins and Tom Foster documented during a board meeting this RCSC Board was seeking to come after me for lots of money for daring to question their absolute authority (damages caused). Members matter and always will.

John

 

Don't forget the pool and surrounding area O&T, it's a much loved member setting. Getting real is the only way this thing gets on the books and gets done. I suspect the biggest fight will be over fixed seating versus collapsible. Fixed with a sloped floor limits usage.

Historically we know the purpose of this center was always fixed on a small footprint with a community flavor committed to a small segment of the population. The mistake was made when Karen McAdam was fired and the board that fired her were so fearful of losing the coming election, they promised everyone everything.

Truly governance at its worst.

 

I did not forget the pool. With the other pools and its proximity to Fairway I put that under the wants not the needs.

 

John,
I just looked at the agenda and saw nothing that referred to anything referencing the North Course. Is it buried somewhere in the other items? I know it’s not included in the motion on insurance otherwise I would know about it.

As a side note, have you ever thought of being on the insurance committee? Only two meetings a year, occasionally maybe three. It’s one of the two most important committees in RCSC, the other is BF&A. Without those, no RCSC.
First meeting is generally the third Friday in March wherein our brokers talk about the market for the individual lines and a general idea about the renewal. You don’t have to say anything but listen. Very informative and worth your two hours. The next meeting is generally the second or third week in April wherein the proposed renewal quote is released.

I thought you might be interested from a businessman standpoint and considering we are about to spend nearly $1M of operational expense that it might pique your interest.

Dave, pseudo Knight Templar and Black Death aficionado.

 

The agenda provided by FYI has been revised.
It didn’t include this new golf motion:
Motions First Reading
Long Range Planning Committee – Director Rough – I move, based on the Long Range Planning Committee recommendation, to approve the North Course design funding not to exceed $100,000.
FULL REVISED agenda link:https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/2025_06_26-Board-Meeting-Agenda-revised.pdf

 

That explains a lot. Thanks.

 

I understand that Jim Rough's motion is not accurate in that it fails (purposely) to mention that the LRP voted to recommend limiting golf course expenditures to those necessary to meet ADWR requirements. Rough fails to mention whether the board accepted or rejected the LRP recommendation. His actions have apparently caused at least one LRP member to resign.

 

Hopefully members of the LRPC will sign up and speak out when the motion is read. I watched the Exchange meeting from June and at least one golfer got up and complained about the sand traps at the North course. There apparently has been motions or commitments made that go back for years to fix them. Curious the one remark would trigger an immediate action.

I find it odd, because we know last year the general manager trimmed palms on one (or more?) golf courses well in excess of the $25k cap he has without getting bids. Nary a peep was heard and that number allegedly soared to the $300k range. The argument was he got incremental pricing at $25k and just strung them together. Hardly the intent of the limits, as securing competitive bids has long been an issue (whether true or false is debatable).

The bigger problem is the question on how Sun City works; or how it should work? We know clubs apply for projects being funded a year (years) in advance, it would seem to me golf should fall under a similar category. But that's just one piece of the bigger puzzle; what role should committee's fill or play as we push forward? Do they have a voice, or don't they? Are recommendations to be acted on behind closed doors or in front of the membership?

I've written volumes over the years and i would argue beyond the member safeguards stripped from our documents, the second biggest problem was the neutering of the committees. Serving on them while the board diminishes their value or contributions has caused countless numbers of us to walk away out of frustration.

It's hardly how they grow the circle on member engagement and involvement; which truly explains why we are where we are.

Can it change? Should it change? Does it even matter what members think?

 

Does anyone know if a comprehensive action plan to meet ADWR requirements was ever developed or is the Board simply winging it? Given the size and importance of Golf to Sun City it would seem grossly negligent to piecemeal the expenditure of AWDR funds based solely on director's preferences. IMHO a reasonable person would prioritize the expenditures based on water savings for the dollar spent. Was this done and that is why QR is first and North is second? If so, why are the water savings being generated from the QR supposedly so small.

I hope some of these and other questions gets asked at the Board meeting.

 

John,
I went searching for ADWR Compliance Documents within the scope as it relates to the RCSC, and the only reference I find is the ADWR Documents are with the corporate attorney deciding if the RCSC will sign them or not. Is this another example of corporate malfeasance whereas there has been no action to be in compliance with Arizona State policies regarding water use? If these documents were signed and agreed upon, why are there no documents available to the members to review? If there is no agreement yet, then how can any board move forward without knowing and advising the members of the consequences?
I don’t golf, but I do know how to search for documents when made available. Can someone please provide documentation that the RCSC is operating in accordance with the documents provided by the ADWR and is doing so within the agreement guidelines? There’s no reason for repercussions from the state because agreements were not adhered to.

 

Carole,

Perhaps you should call the ADWR and find out what is going on?

John

 

I will call on Monday as when searching the ADWR website the last document I can find, addressed to the Recreation Centers of Sun City is another notice of not having met the requirements for filing a compliant plan. Curious to hear what they have to say.

 

One women's opinion:

Sun City/RCSC doesn't work.

How it has managed to stay solvent all these years is a mystery to me. The Board is confused about its role; it's doing the work of the management and will burn itself out. The management definitely needs a refresh and some expertise.

Not picking on anyone; just stating the facts as I see them.

Jean Totten

 

I have a really crazy question that I am sure someone knows the answer to. What fund or where is the money coming from that pays for the expenses of the corporate attorney? The corporation pays for this service, but what part of the corporation pays for this service to be available to the company? In other words, are there any assessment funds paying for
this service? And if there are, this, in essence, makes this a service that should also benefit those who pay for the service? And, if assessment funds are used, then the members should also have the ability to decide who represents the corporation in any aspect of the business. Just want to know before going any further. Thank you

 

Good question!

And if it does come out of our assessment, then why don't we, the Members, have access to legal council as well? Hmmm?

 

FYI, have access to the legal counsel for what reason? If it is for the purpose of an action against RCSC, there would be a conflict of interest and you would have retain counsel on your own. If to represent you in an administrative hearing against a governmental entity, RCSC’s legal counsel is strictly corporate law and this is very far removed from their baliwick . If it is other run of the mill legal issues, divorce, probate, estate planning, traffic tickets or low level criminal, refer to my previous statements.

Think of it another way, you may be a member of the PBS station because of your donations and the station has legal counsel. Just because you donate and are a “member” doesn’t allow you free legal advice. Same if you are a stockholder in a company which has a legal counsel, they are there to represent you.

 

You make things way more complicated than needed.

How about just getting a legal opinion regarding the bylaws and the ARS?

Seems to me, that in the past they have used the wrong bylaws on a particular issue as well as violating their own bylaws. It would be nice to have legal council interpret the rules rather the board members who always seem to interpret them in their own favor!