How Sun City West deals with it.

Discussion in 'Sun City General Discussions' started by BPearson, Feb 13, 2019.

  1. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    The one legitimate concern raised in the RCSC email about Payne's legislation was the concern we would be overrun by rentals. The RCSC has 75 mile language that prevents a home owner in Peoria buying here, using the facilities but renting the SC home out, thereby clogging our facilities beyond capacity. It sounded legit.

    It sent me scurrying to the Sun City West documents, and they indeed have dealt with that concern, albeit differently than Sun City. Here is their language:
    Amended and Restated 4-02-0752.4.4.2 The Owners of Residential Rental Unit Property shall pay to the Association, for each single family Residential Rental Unit Property owned by them, an annual fee in an amount not less than the current Owner Member Dues for each Owner Member of the Residential Rental Unit.2.4.4.3 The Owners of the Residential Rental Unit Property shall deposit with the Association all Member Cards issued to Owner Members and Associate Members for that property.2.4.4.3.1 Owner Members and Associate Members must surrender their facilities use privileges assigned to that unit for so long as any Tenant residing therein is to be afforded the use of Association facilities and holds a Tenant Activity Card.2.4.4.3.2 The failure of an owner to surrender all Member Cards, as provided herein, shall specifically prohibit guest card privileges being extended to all tenants and/or occupants of said property.2.4.4.4 A Tenant Activity Card, once issued, is nontransferable from the individual Tenant for whom, or from the Residential Rental Unit for which, the Card is issued. 2.4.5 Tenants holding a valid Tenant Activity Card shall have the same privilege of facilities use accorded to all Owner Members of the Association. By accepting a Tenant Activity Card, the Tenant agrees to abide by the Governing Documents of the Association.

    If you got bleary eyed reading it, essentially it says if you buy and rent a SCW property, you have turn in your membership card for the renter to buy an activity card. Hence, never more than a single owner(s) per property. If the renter doesn't buy a card, the outside owner appears to be able to use the facilities, but it is never more than 1 or 2 people per property and no strain on the facilities.

    Dang, there's goes that boogeyman theory eh? And, by the way, i got my mailed notice of the membership meeting via postcard yesterday. Another massive cost myth debunked.
     
  2. SCR

    SCR Active Member

    I also received the post card yesterday and am very curious as to why after 20 years, I have received a postcard from RCSC.
    In 20 years, I have never received a mailing from RCSC other than a notice that rec fees were due.

    Something smells here and I'm not sure what it is. I have some thoughts on it, but I think I'll leave it up to the majority on this
    board to explain why we are finally getting mailings - that in the past were said to be too costly to do.
     
  3. SCR

    SCR Active Member

    Just an after thought - what is the Annual Membership Meeting? Never heard of it before.

    Is this perhaps an opportunity to ask the questions regarding T33 and why RCSC is opposed to it.

    Who besides the RCSC is going to give the pros and cons of each, and who is going to be the devils advocate?
     
  4. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    The RCSC by-laws used to call for quarterly membership meetings. They would only actually have them, following a regular monthly board meeting, if there were 100 members present. The last one was Sept of 2009. That's when they changed the quorum requirements to something like 3500 and then reduced it a couple of years later to 1250.

    The "fear" was 100 angry people would show up and force them to make changes from the floor that would hurt the community. It was BS because included in their by-laws was language that said any motion from the floor would have to be sent to the board for study of the impact and reported back at the next meeting. The GM claimed that language could be challenged in court (are you laughing yet?) and we might lose. The only way to protect ourselves was to change the quorum to a safe number.

    While i was on the board i tried to get them to agree to a smaller quorum number, no such luck. Instead we agreed to go to one annual membership meeting. We never got near the 1250 we needed, and have never come close since. I was sure the board would see the error of their ways and reduce the number to something around 500. Nope, they are just fine never having an official membership meeting. Shameful in my opinion.

    As far as looking for hearing both sides of the story on T33 compared to T10, don't hold your breath. I would be dumbfounded if a board member could begin to articulate why T33 is bad, other than they have been told so 1000 times. The real downside for T33 is if they don't follow it, they can get sued far easier than under T10. For example, if three of the board members were to be having their private meetings (like they were last year) and someone found out about them, they could be sued for violating the open meetings laws.

    It should be interesting to note, the email today took all the fluff and lies out. It does look like the board is circling the wagons as they get ready for some heat. The annual membership meeting will be the perfect opportunity to ask all kinds of interesting questions. Frankly, it's time to force them to answer the questions on solar, on golf expenditures and especially on T33.
     
  5. CMartinez

    CMartinez Well-Known Member

    Could you pass along a copy of the email, please? I don't subscribe and would love to see the latest version being sent out to the membership. And after the long budget presentation, there will be an open mic session to allow for the hard hitting questions which are in dire need of being asked.
     
  6. IndependentCynic

    IndependentCynic Active Member

    Yes, it's curious why the mailing. T33 requires notification and agendas, but I'm more suspicious this is more a case of them trying to muster a quorum to illustrate to the court that what they're doing is working and there's no need for T33. I'd think not having a member quorum for 10 consecutive years would be a hurdle in their arguments to the court. The email blasts coupled with a reminder in the mail might just attract a quorum?
     
  7. CMartinez

    CMartinez Well-Known Member

    IC, the judges ruling is not based upon an "if then that" ruling. It is clear the RCSC, by deeds and acts, far removed from an annual meeting is what garnered the ruling. When reading the ruling, the judge cites specific items such as the facilities agreement and the members status as a reason for declaring the RCSC a planned community. Having a quorum (HA) at this point has no meaning on the ruling. There is nothing that can be said or done to undo this bell, it has been rung. Now, all the ruckus about T33 and T10 could cause the quorum to be met for the first time in a very long time, but there are going to be folks ready for the open microphone to ask very salient questions of Jan Ek and the board.
     
  8. CMartinez

    CMartinez Well-Known Member

    The annual meeting features the reading of the RCSC budget, followed by the question and answer period. This is when questions can be asked, such as the golf budget, the solar costs, and the real truth behind T33. While I would expect Jan to answer the questions about the golf budget, who will talk about the finer points to T33 and not present falsehoods? My favorite being the loss of the age overlay being caused by T33. Will someone again try and state Youngtown is in the state it is in because of T33? Will the President yield the floor to an astute and educated person extremely familiar with the finer points of T33?

    If the board were truly willing to learn and listen, they would seek out Ben for tutelage on what having open meetings is about, how to conduct them and how to not end up in violation of the open meeting law. Ben Roloff is a soft spoken, well educated and extremely experienced person with more experience than anyone on open meetings, governing, and how T33 can change the landscape of the RCSC. Ben knows the history of Sun City, how decisions were made, and more importantly, how to govern for the future.

    There is a great change about to happen, the membership is going to matter to the RCSC, let us make the transition to open meetings and member involvement a good one.
     

Share This Page