Setting the record straight...yet again

I see we continue to get the same begging for dollars on this site about how poorly Sun City is and has been run. Fascinating, given the outcomes we have achieved over the past 53 years isn't it? Let's recap: Self-governed, most amenities at the least cost and facilities and golf courses remodeled and rebuilt at a record pace.

And once again let me help folks understand how we moved from a per person to a per property yearly assessment. In the mid 2000's the board was struggling with consistent revenue streams. We know there are some 27,000 rooftops in Sun City, what wasn't predictable was how many residents would live under those same rooftops. In an effort to create a more controllable budget process, they "grandfathered" existing homes and passed a per property assessment. The deal was they honored existing facilities agreements and then folks wanting to buy into Sun City could agree to the new terms or choose to go elsewhere and buy.

Like it or not, it was an effort to stabilize yearly cash flow. And while I have had my issues with it, the reality is it has worked well. Just for comparison purposes, Sun City West still has individual rates. Back when this was passed, their rates were just a touch above ours. Today, their "single" rate is $403 and for two people it is $806. I suspect you get the point as to why this action was taken.

But let's get back to the real nexus of how "poorly" Sun City has been run. Seems our friendly poster doesn't like the PIF and argues residents should vote on where we should spend funds. In fact, she feels like every project greater than $750,000 should be voted on by residents. Worse yet, she argues if something should somehow pass, then residents should be assessed an amount to pay for it (on top of their yearly lot assessment).

Let's think about that: The bulk of the residents living north of Grand Ave would have had to vote on an assessment to cover the 16.2 million dollar Fairway rebuild. That says nothing of those South of Grand Ave who don't use the facilities. What do you think the likelihood of that assessment passing? Then throw in the constant necessity to invest millions of dollars into the golf courses and with less than 20% of the population who play golf, how many of those assessments would have passed?

Here's the point: Sun City (all of us) own an amenity package worth well over 100 million dollars. They were "given" to us by DEVCO and the RCSC was charged with running and maintaining them. It's one of the world's great success stories, but the truth is those amenities age and to ignore them and let them deteriorate would be catastrophic. Boards along the way understood the need to address the aging of those assets and did things to insure those of us who came along after them would have the resources to do what needed to be done.

I always go back to the outcomes as the litmus test as to whether we are on the right track; so let's once again, recap:
1). The most amenities.
2). The least cost for them.
3). No debt to do it.
4). Still self-governed.
5). Over 100 million dollars reinvested in our infrastructure in the first 25 years the PIF has been around.
6). No crippling assessments to those who can least afford it.
7). No nasty battles over what projects should be funded.

The outcomes are clear: Unsurpassed amenities and all at a cost that is well within many retirees budgets. Yearly lot assessments that are the lowest in the country.

How does it get any better than that!

 

Well said, again.
However, I doubt if "that person" will stop arguing.

 

The thought crossed my mind that perhaps for households in which there is a single paying the assessment, they be given a "guest card" that can be used by the holder of the card all year long. I doubt if the card would be overly used, but it would give the single person an opportunity to take a guest with her or him to use the amenities and would be good in the caregiver situation.

 

That's an interesting idea, gilmark, and worthy of some discussion. The cost to the RCSC would be reduced revenues from selling guest cards, which must be a miniscule item in the total budget. Selling guest cards are great for the RCSC with being prepaid for visits that may or may not ever be used--kind of like a gift cards sold by Best Buy or Apple. It would make it even more attractive to singles paying the full property assessment if they could use the guest card for golf. It would likely increase total rounds of golf sold and total revenues. That wouldn't be a bad idea. There are likely downsides to the concept I haven't thought of at this point. I would welcome hearing them from contributors.

 

Bill Pearson's justification for spending the members' money without their permission is like a mugger stealing somebody's wallet and claiming he can spend the money better. "Gimme your money, my kids need Christmas presents!"

Bill Pearson illegally approved $30 million in projects on 9/26/13, yet is telling the sheep as he is fleecing them that nobody is getting hurt, just stand still.

We are not standing still. The millions the board is spending came from the members. The members are in charge of the money. Article X guarantees a spending and borrowing limit. The board must come to the members for a vote. The fact that Mr. Pearson believes the members wouldn't vote for his projects tells us he is deliberately not calling for a membership vote. That means he is deliberately spending millions of dollars without permission. Taking money without permission meets the definition of stealing.

The members must go to court in a class action lawsuit to compel RCSC compliance with state statutes and the community documents. The members are not funded to do that. All of the members' mandatory assessments go to pay for counsel for the board members and for an insurance policy for the board members. The members have no counsel of their own until we retained one.

Lawsuit is the way the system works to control the illegal actions of RCSC board members. And there is no mistake: it is illegal for the board to spend over $750,000 without a vote of the members. The members have a right to vote no.

 

And yet again we come back to the same nonsense. You demand "unsurpassed amenities" with no way to pay for them. The board of directors in 1999 created a plan that fit perfectly within the structure of the articles of incorporation when they passed the Preservation and Improvement Fund(PIF). You babble on about the history of the community but you are clueless as to the origins of the PIF. Let me help you out once again: DEVCO did the same thing by creating a point of sale charge to pay for the amenity package they gave us.

And I see you are still crying about Title 33. Really? Even our Articles of Incorporation make reference to the RCSC falling under Title 10:
Article VI
Indemnification of present and former Members, Directors, Officers and employees, and agents of this Corporation shall be governed in accordance with Title 10, Chapter 5, Section 10-1005, Sub-Section B of the Revised Arizona Statutes. The provisions therein set forth are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof with the same force and effect as though set forth herein in full.

Here's the problem: You say things because you want them to be that way...unfortunately the documents and the history prove you wrong time and again. I'm sure you mean well...but...

In any event the reality is simply this: We have been self-governed for near on 50 years, we've rebuilt the community where we not only have unsurpassed amenities, but we have the lowest cost in the country for them. Try as you may, that's just the way it is no matter how you twist it.

 

I would really hate to see huge assessments thrown on the residents here. Things work just fine the way they are and we have been very content with the RCSC and the board. Maybe I am simply tired of fist fights and have found my little piece of paradise for the time being and want to remain positive about all Sun City has to offer...sigh.