I have heard many and various stories regarding the sustainability of golf. Is there or isn't there a stipulation in either the Articles of Corporation or Corporate Bylaws that requires golf to be financially self-sustaining? I can't seem to find any!?!? Also heard similar requirements for bowling. Do any such requirements exist in any RCSC documents?
I have 2 newspaper articles from the point they were turned over to the RCSC for $10 and a cup of coffee. Both articles talk about the agreement to be self-sustaining and that dues/rec fees couldn't/wouldn't be used to subsidize them. That's why it took so long for the deal to come together, members were worried golf would become a money pit. Newspaper articles don't make anything binding. What did come from the deal was the creation of a board of directors made up of RCSC board members and the accompanying documents that would have to go with them. They would have to have been on file with the state and if that language is anywhere it should be in those documents. At some point it was rolled back into the RCSC, however i suspect those documents would need to be honored. I'll try and figure out what the name of the organization was and post it.
I'm no financial genius, so I won't pretend to believe I totally understand what I'm seeing, but I do know parentheses' represent deficits. This budget is showing over a $670,00 Net Operating Excess and some handwritten notes says it's because of golf!?!? That's what got me wondering!
Golf revenue far exceeded its budget last year FYI. It was the only game in town and we kept the courses open to outsiders. I won't even go into the budgeting process, other than to say, it has been a one person show for a very long time. There's been games played over the years which is why i have said the only way to truly get a handle on where we are would be a forensic audit. That will never happen. One of the more nonsensical pieces to the puzzle is including golf course maintenance rebuilds on the facility side of the accounting rather than back to the golf side. It's really dumb because the funding comes out of PIF which is exempt from the calculations to determine the cost for a round of golf. I suspect they were put under amenities so that golf wouldn't look so lopsided. The articles i have said this: "Management and finances for the courses will be entirely separate from the other rec center operations. They will be operated on a self-sustaining basis, with dues and fess to golfers sufficient to cover all costs." It also said this: "An appointed group of Sun Citians will manage the golf courses. That group will probably be incorporated and will be a subsidiary of the rec center board." They did in fact go on to create a separate board and filed the articles of incorporation. I will get the name of it in the next day or two. My bigger concern is some have appeared to want to forget the terms they were purchased under. There is little question going forward golf will become the money pit many feared. The state is going to start squeezing golf courses to convert to desert landscaping by not giving them enough water for anything but fairways, greens and t-boxes.
Shady accounting for golf has been a problem for quite a while. I can maybe see PIF funds being used for the pro shops because they also house the food concessions that anyone can access. Using the PIF funds for all new maintenance and golf cart storage buildings is another story. At $750,000+ per course there's no way that golf fees could cover the expense. The bowling facilities at least house other activities(i.e. billiards, shuffleboard, darts, meeting room for clubs, George's Restaurants) that benefit when projects are done to the building. Expenditures to bowling exclusive upgrades or repairs have been few and far between.
Is that because the lake leaks and loses twice its volume every year or is it simply because Arizona is and has been in a drought?
FYI wrote: Is that because the lake leaks and loses twice its volume every year or is it simply because Arizona is and has been in a drought? The State wants more money in its coffers. The amount of water lost by Viewpoint Lake is exaggerated in comparison to other water losses. Some water evaporates but most of the water leaks into the ground which ends up in the aquifer. The County Board of Supervisors approves almost all requests for new housing developments because they see dollar signs in the way of increased tax revenue. I've written to them asking how they can continue to approve 1000s of new homes which require at least a 99 year source of water when we are being told to conserve because of the historic draught. They did reply but it only exposed all the loopholes that let this disastrous practice continue.
The never will respond aggie because new developments are their bread and butter. There's a problem in this state with water but when you add in all the golf courses, it becomes an absolute nightmare. Converting to desert landscaping is a short term fix and does nothing for the long term.
