About the RCSC Lawsuit...

The RCSC Articles of Incorporation Article VIII.4, guarantees that where there is a dispute between the Board and the Members over the bylaws (or board policies), "the action of the Members shall prevail." The RCSC board removed that action by illegally increasing the quorum for membership meetings. Our attorney wrote the board advising them that what they did was illegal (as well as other actions) and there was no reply. To add insult to injury, the board removed the quarterly Membership meetings entirely making the quorum issue moot.

The board disobeys Article X's spending limit by approving multi-million-dollar projects without a membership vote; and Article VIII.5's "equal" members requirement by imposing an unequal assessment of $3000 for the Preservation and Improvement Fee and charging single homeowners double. They removed membership rights from homeowners who own a primary residence outside of Sun City but within 75 miles of Sun City, charging them mandatory assessments and giving them nothing in return. And more...

The RCSC Members have a right to complain about board members who disobey state statutes and the community documents. Elected board members must obey the law.

The Sun City Formula Registry was formed to be the "action of the Members". The Members' mandatory assessments pay for counsel used against membership interest. The Members pay for insurance to protect the board members, but none to protect the Members. The Members need counsel and SCFR now has counsel on retainer to file Complaints for "class action" lawsuits against RCSC when they harm the Members. The board's illegal bylaws and board policies have made it absolutely essential. Only lawsuits filed in Superior Court can remedy RCSC board members operating outside the law.

Our group consists of RCSC Members who love Sun City and we are passionate to stick to that Formula so that Sun City can survive until each of us reaches 100, an age that is becoming commonplace here. Join us.

Anne

 

I haven't bought a house in SC yet but when I read the bylaws I did think it unfair that a single person has to pay a two person recreation fee per household. I didn't think about the $3,000 being double also, but I see now that it could be looked at like that. Single people who have less per household income, in most cases, are at a disadvantage. Not all Sun Cities charge this way. Others charged are per person.

 

I see the fee as just the fee and not tied to how many live in the home. I may be wrong. I guess you could bring it up at a meeting in the future.

 

I thought I had downloaded the bylaws but I can't find them to give an exact quote. But it says something like the annual $450 fee allows use of the recreation centers for two people. One single person pays the same as two people so for them (a couple in one house) the fee is $225 per person. The $3,000 is different because it's like a buy-in cost to the community but it could be looked at the same way.

 

We knew all about the RCSC fees and PIF beforehand so we were well informed. I am very happy about the decision that we made to buy in Sun City. Even at $450 per year, for one person that is $1.23 per day, and you can visit one or all seven rec centers. We looked at all seven centers before we purchased, and we were very satisfied with their condition. I couldn't find a better deal at any other Sun City.

 

The fees will be challenged in the class action lawsuit by the Members. Deal or not, unequal assessments are not allowed because Art. VIII.5 requires equal privileges, voting rights, and obligations among the members. A single person pays $450 and $3,000, getting one vote; a married couple pays the same getting two votes. A victim saying it is fine with him that he's being cheated does not make it okay for the board to not obey the Articles of Incorporation. Art. VIII.3 says the board cannot write bylaws that conflict with the Articles of Incorporation. Art. VIII.4 says the action of the members shall prevail in a conflict with the board over the bylaws. Check it out: http://sunaz.com/articles-of-incorporation/

 

Thank you for the info.

 

It is my understanding that annereport, or Sun City Formula Registry, has been promising a multiissue lawsuit now for several years as referenced in the post of earlier this morning. Could we please have some insight as when it will be filed or if it has been filed and is waiting for a hearing date?

 

If you use the rec centers and clubs, frequently.. WHAT A DEAL ! ! The gyms, swimming pools, the clubs to join and be involved in are such low cost ! ! The Rec Fees at $1.23 per day - -is a bargain for what we get !

 

I do notice that most people who comment that they are OK with the concept of singles paying double than a couple are in fact part of a couple. If SC does not want to lose money, there is a simple solution. Have couples pay $900 per year. Then it will be fair and RCSC would have even more money to spend. And FYI, if you look at other health clubs that offer the ability to use various clubs around the cities, many are lower than $450 (I don't know how you figured it but 325 days/450=$1.38 per day). I do realize RCSC offers other services. I am OK with $450, but that inequality really needs to be addressed. It is just unfair, period. Would $900 per year be ok for you couples?

 

Why would paying $450 per person make sense? The RCSC assessment on a per property basis gives them an accurate stream of income each year because the amount of properties doesn't change. It doesn't matter if one or 20 people live in a residence....$450 for the property address. That doesn't mean that any or all of the people will have a RCSC card. Some may have to purchase a privilege card. I would like to see two cards issued per property for owner occupied residences that are paying the full $450 annual assessment. This would not apply to rentals but it would allow age qualified spouses, siblings or partners not on the deed be allowed a RCSC card at no additional cost.

Also remember that a Sun City resident may live in a senior housing unit(i.e. Royal Oaks or Heritage) and not be eligible for a RCSC card because they don't own the property. They must purchase a privilege card for access to facilities.

I make full use of the RCSC facilities year round and the price is well worth it to me.

 

I haven't been joining in too this much because I am technically an outsider, (though I do plan to buy in SC). But I can't resist to comment as it will affect me. Aggie you say "why would paying $450 per person make sense?" Apparently it used to. If you read the info posted here on Sunaz: https://sunaz.com/anne-randall-stewarts-claims-unfounded/ At the bottom it states a ruling. "Property owned prior to February 1, 2003 will continue being assessed on a Per Person basis as long as (a) Owners consistently maintain the Property as their primary Arizona residence as defined in the Corporate Bylaws; (b) Owners are in compliance with the Restated Articles of Incorporation, Corporate Bylaws, Board Policies and any Rules and Regulations of the Corporation; and (c) original Owners as of February 1, 2003 remain as majority Owners or income beneficiaries of the Property." Aggie, you say condo owners pay per person. So it's even more select who pays double: Single people who bought a house after 2003. It does make a difference if there is one or 20 people living in the house because 2 memberships are given per house. It's not martial status, no, roommates could also share the membership I guess. What happens to the unused membership card for the single? I don't think the single payer can use it for a guest, can they? I know it is called a property assessment but a property is not a member and doesn't use facilities so it still seems odd to me to parse out this group of single owners who bought after 2003. I do know this, regardless of the reasoning posted and the facilities available, when I pay that $450 each year and know that others pay less, I will feel a bit ripped off. That's just the truth.

 

This 2003 issue explains why more older residents are not concerned/vocal about an imbalance in payments. And also notice that is someone inherits a property that was purchased before 2003 they also get assessed at a per person rate. So other newbies singles who inherit can also get that rate. At least that is the way I interpreted that ruling. If I am wrong, please explain it.

 

Just to clarify that condo owners do pay per property just as if it was a single family residence. Many of the people that bought homes prior to 2003 are elderly and benefit from the per person. In the past ten years many of the homes have been sold and the per property went into effect. Inheriting property didn't guaranty a per person basis. I see nothing wrong with giving a 2nd card to a single person but it most likely would be a privilege card if the person is not on the deed.

Maybe if there are a few new faces on the RCSC Board some of these issues will be addressed.

 

I thought it was per property, at least that's what I read before I purchased. Also, when you purchase, you sign an agreement that you will pay the rec fee yearly. You also agree to the condo association rules, and you should get a copy of them before you make a decision as well.

We took a look around at other Sun Cities and over 55 communities, and Sun City Original was still the best.

Yes, I think the solution to any issue is to try and work within the system and get involved.

 

Thanks for the reply to my general question of last month regarding the long anticipated lawsuit against the RCSC. We now understand that as soon as you collect $28,000 more, the lawsuit will be filed. Considering you have been collecting money for years and have accumulated $16,000, it is questionable whether any of those contributors will live long enough to see a suit litigated to determine if what you assert as a set of facts are really fats or are your opinions. One should not confuse the two or interchange them.

 

I am confused.
As a single do I pay more than a couple?

 

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer:

Single homeowners pay more than married couples if they have signed a per-lot facilities agreement and get one vote. A married couple pays the same as a single homeowner yet gets two votes. That is contrary to Article VIII.5 which requires that members be "equal".

Some single homeowners have signed a per-person facilities agreement on a second property that was honored but then not honored which caused a jump of over 100 percent in the annual assessment, which is illegal.

Couples who signed a per-person facilities agreement get to halve their assessment when one of them dies.

Couples who signed a per-lot facilities agreement do not get to halve their assessment when one of them dies.

If you paid the Preservation and Improvement fee, you also have been targeted for unequal treatment. Some members have never paid it, will never pay it, while others have paid it multiple times and even so are not given member standing at all; no vote or facility usage.

If you bought a Host Punch Card, you have been targeted for unequal treatment, as well. Some members cannot afford to buy them, so cannot use the facilities to entertain family and friends, like the richer members who can afford it. Even though they have paid their equal share and the facilities are already paid for a year in advance, they cannot utilize them equally like the richer members can. That goes for members who are now having their clubs charged rental fees and are having to close up shop and members whose clubs have to pay the RCSC matching donations when their club donates to a worthy cause.

The Del Webb idea is to create a sense of community through volunteerism to keep costs down and to divide equally the expense of maintaining the facilities and then leave the members alone to enjoy what they paid for. That's not happening.
SOLUTION:

Charge $225 per lot for one member card and one vote. (If the homeowner is not the resident, the member card goes to the resident eliminating landlords from having to suffer unequal double-dipping.)

Charge $225 for each additional homeowner or resident for a member card with one vote.

Remove the guest and rental fees. Remove the matching donation funds requirement. Remove the 75-mile rule.
Remove the PIF.

And that's only one cause of action...

Reinstate the quorum for membership meetings, reinstate our quarterly membership meetings, open the board "work session", allow recordings, open the records, call a vote of the members for expenditures over $750,000, return a quorum for board meetings to 5 not 6, etc.

This is supposed to be "Our Retirement Dream Come True." If the RCSC would return to protecting the members from bullying and gouging, it will be, again.

 

I think it's obvious pegmih...couples are getting a break. And I don't understand the reason. They already have a break from sharing mortage/rent, utilities etc. And in many cases have two pensions or social security checks. Why are they given this break too? I don't get it. Especially since it was not that way at the beginning of Sun City.

I also don't understand the reason the board will not video the meetings. Others places do, most cities do. Even the fed government has c-span. In a community where many do not get out, it seems even more necessary to broadcast. Very curious.

 

I don't know about closed work sessions, I imagine many governing boards have those. I was mostly talking about the open meetings. But open meetings should allow members to voice concerns that the board members can hear before they make decisions.

Many cities have the issues you are talking about (pet projects that the tax payers do not agree with, same contractors, etc) I am a bit sad to hear it happens in Sun City, if that is the truth. Not that I expect Sun City to be a perfect place, but I thought it was a bit more member influenced. You would say it is not, Anne. But others members may say they have given input. I hope that is also true and I'm just not hearing that side right now.