"Show Me The Money."

Who can forget the classic line, "show me the money" from Jerry Maguire? Hell, to this day, just writing it makes me want to scream along with Cuba Gooding Jr as he gets Tom Cruise to bellow into his phone and dance along with him. It is classic and even fitting when you consider what it posted below.

Anyone moving to Sun City after 1977 and even into the early 2000's knew the deal. It was common knowledge and no one tried to hide it. Golf (and 10 pin bowling though i have never seen that agreement) were taken by the RCSC and the contract signed called for them to be self-sustaining. It literally says that in the purchase agreement for the 7 golf courses we have at the museum. Quail Run came later and has a slightly different agreement.

While i served on the board (2012-2014) i asked the gm to see the documents and she said they must be buried in boxes and couldn't put her hands on them. As the years went by and i had left the board, i watched as the Preservation and Improvement fund (PIF) was used extensively for golf course remodels.

Let me be clear, nothing wrong with that. The PIF was created to update our amenities and golf was an incredibly important part of the Sun City way of life. Where i took exception was how the gm billed those expenditures back. Her accounting sucked as she showed some of the buildings for golf being reported on the "facilities" side rather than the "golf" side of the ledger. It was simply so golf didn't look like they were getting too much money. It was stupid because ultimately if we needed to rebuild something, just bill it accordingly.

Several times after leaving, i would get in arguments with board members and even the gm over how things were being done. The least of my concerns were over how PIF was being spent and where they were showing it. Board members i talked to were almost numb to my arguments. My bigger concerns were always this: "was golf self-sustaining?"

That should have been an easy question and answer. It never was though, as most board members had no idea. A couple of them acknowledged, maybe not, but surely it was close. They always responded in this way; golf is too important to Sun City to not help it stay solvent (my words not theirs but essentially the argument they made).

They were right, to a point. Golf is critical to Sun City, and it will be for years to come. My response back has always been; "at what cost?" "How much is too much?" No one ever answered, and worse yet, apparently no one cared. I knew we were spending money from the general ledger and not billing it back, i just never knew how much.

Last year when i showed up at a board meeting with the deed restrictions and purchase agreement, it must have shaken the gm. Because at the next meeting, she came with the same documents in hand and if you watch the video of the meeting she tried saying two things; first the RCSC never really intended to make golf revenue neutral and second, even though the document said that, the agreement was between DEVCO and the title company (or some such nonsense...she had to say something).

Say freaking what? No, it was the contract signed by the RCSC to take ownership and by the way, it said exactly what all of us who have lived here a long time knew and understood; Golf courses were not intended to become a money pit for those of us living here and not playing golf.

Once having the documents in hand, i started my quest to find out just how bad it was. I requested documents from the RCSC and got less than half what i requested. With what i had in hand, i could speculate it was somewhere in the neighborhood of a million to a million and half dollars a year. Pure guess on my part and as it turns out, well below the actual numbers (at least for the past 5 years).

I will close out for now...but for those of you reading along...one last time; "SHOW ME THE MONEY."

 

Why am i going down this road now? Good question and let me refresh your inquisitive minds: At the Thursday board meeting, we heard the general manager request an increase in the Viewpoint lake project. It went from 6 million dollars to 8 million dollars in roughly 6 months. That was a good thing, not the increase, the fact he asked the board. There were some questions, as there should be, but the lake leakage must be fixed and it will be an expensive proposition (we think 8 million won't be enough, but for now, it's where it's at).

Now we see a report/request from the long range planning committee to try and update the fitness equipment in a couple of the rec centers. Bill Cook's concerns were about the "thousands of dollars" that would cost and lamenting it would need to be requested in the 2023 budget with the purchase then in 2024. Apparently at that same meeting (LRPC), one or more of the committee members reported he had visited other age restricted communities and saw first hand how much better their fitness equipment was. Hell, some of our centers are still using the old Eagle machines.

But, for discussion sake, lets not stop there. Several meetings ago, we saw a IT planning session where our shortcoming regarding technology was exposed to the community. Many of us knew we were will behind the curve, we just didn't realize it was as bad as it was. There was virtually nothing salvageable from the years gone by. The consensus was we would be starting from scratch and rebuilding it from top to bottom. They threw out a three year plan and the technology committee recommended 500k the first year. The GM had told them, he wanted to be conservative in their efforts to get us back up to speed.

Hopefully, by now you will see where this is going, if not, i will quickly get you there. Voting on increases and expenditures is a good thing and a long standing practice in Sun City. Committees have served integral roles in the decision making process from almost the very beginning. We've never just thrown money at things without a fair amount of discussion within the community. We were built that way, it was what people living here, the members expected.

So, with that in mind, how did Sun City suddenly drift and let the question of golf becoming a subsidized activity without any discussion happen...by anyone? Not the board (s), not the committees, not a word from the general manager about a move away from a game intended to pay for itself. For the golfers, many of which were board members over the years, they resent the terms and conditions the courses were purchased under. I know, as they have complained openly to me about it. They have told me it isn't fair.

Maybe not, but those conditions were how the courses were deeded to us. That's not my fault, it was done as a safe guard by the existing board at the time to insure they didn't cost the community a fortune as time went by. The board members in Sun City in 1975 understood and frankly feared owning the golf courses. They took near on 15 years to put together the deal (1962-1977) to officially own them. DEVCO had to throw 50k plus all of the equipment to sweeten the pot to make it happen.

It is a good thing we own them, and i mean that. If not, those courses would at some point be sold. The land they sit on is too valuable to remain golf courses if they weren't owned by the community and the RCSC. If you think not, watch what happens to the private country clubs the next 5 or 6 years. Golf always has been and always will be an important part of Sun City's amenity package. It still goes back to the question i have asked repeatedly..."at what cost?"

One more time..."SHOW ME THE MONEY,"

 

The real trigger for this article was when eyesopen posted the link for the 990's the RCSC has to file every year. My challenge has always been the lack of data and information forthcoming from those serving on the board or working for the community as employees of the RCSC. I would hazard a guess, even many of the same people have no idea how bad this actually was/is (apparently).

I will start this by telling you, i am no expert on the forms posted. I have a basic knowledge in that we had to file similar reports every year as a non profit and i know from personal experience with the federal government not to lie on them. When these were posted, and as i looked them over, i was surprised to see golf broken out clearly on the form in Section 3. This was exactly the kind of information that i have been requesting for years. Now we all know, it has been readily available; apparently sharing this kind of information with the board wasn't seen as important. Here's why it is and always should have been:
Golf: Year: Expense: Revenue:
2015: $6,632,002. $4,971,432.
2016: $7,334,931. $5,117,093.
2017: $7,802,129. $5,137,337.
2018: $7,729,191. $5,102,793.
2019: $8,011,411. $5,143,779.
Totals: $37,509,664. $25,472,434.

For those of you who are math wizards, you can quickly see this 5 year revenue total is 12 million dollars less than the expense total. I was looking for the past 15 years because i knew the RCSC had done some improvements on golf courses that didn't go through the PIF and i also knew that weren't billed back into what a round of golf should cost. Theoretically what should happen is the expense side of the ledger should be used to determine the cost of a round of golf the next year. Clearly, that hasn't been the case in years.

This gets even more interesting as i think back to the new gm's comments to me that golf saved the RCSC in 2020 because when it was the only game in town (due to covid19) revenue exploded. I guess we'll have to see if that is the case, because the one thing we know from these figures is, the golf costs have been rising each year so it would seem reasonable to assume the 8 million dollar expense in 2019 didn't go down and in all likelihood, went up. So for golf to have "saved us" (his words, not mine) the revenue side of the ledger should be well in excess of 8 million dollars as well.

Finally, as we think about the recent votes on spending money, buying new equipment and updating our technology, who arbitrarily and unilaterally decided to subsidize golf? I know it was never voted on by the board nor by membership. Who could possibly have that kind of sway in a community where they could just do it? My point is simply this, golf maybe should have been/should be subsidized, however it should not have been left to one person to decide that (if that was indeed the case).

And to be clear, i am simply using raw data from the 990's. I know PIF expenditures are not factored into these numbers, however if i am missing something i would invite the current gm, the past gm or any number of board members who benefited from cheaper golf rates (primarily when buying the full play pass and clearly a conflict of interest if they knew) to step up and set me straight.

One last time eh? "SHOW ME THE MONEY."

 

All of this is quite interesting but my question would be "what are you going to do with this information"
I have nothing against golf but it appears to me that the costs of maintaining the courses far outweighs the cost to those who use the courses.
Without reputable data we will never know how many members and non members use the courses monthly. Pencil and paper doesn't cut it any more.
Rounds played should be counted electronically and not just when someone signs up for a round or when they actually start a round. They should
also record when a golfer leaves the course so there is no cheating to inflate the numbers. Oh I know, everyone in Sun City is honest.
The next question that comes to mind is what would the courses be used for if not golf?
Green spaces? Still need to maintain the green spaces. If courses are converted into some other venue there will be lawsuits.
The only real solution is raise the prices for a round of golf till the courses break even or make money to sustain their existence.
Just an opinion.

 

Fair points SCR and let's be clear, nothing will happen to RCSC golf courses for years. Your latter point was where this need go. No one knew how much money they were spending to let people golf for $5 per round. Most people have no idea this is the case. My guess is even the golfers have no idea. The (the RCSC) already has all the data they need from golf, everyone signs in unless they sneak on. They record non-resident golf in a different column from resident golf. They know how many people buy what cards and exactly how much they play. They just have never factored any of it into the equation. All they cared about was keeping the number of rounds up; revenue was immaterial.

The biggest problem isn't what happened yesterday, it's what is going to happen tomorrow. Costs will continue to rise and we cannot continue to subsidize golf like we have in the past. Think about it, the South golf course will cost us 8 million dollars (today's dollars) to convert to desert landscaping. They think it is a given we just spend that 8 million dollars and act as if there is no other choice. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It's coming from PIF so people get less excited. If the community knows we are throwing 2-3 million dollars a year to give golf away rounds for next to nothing maybe something will change.

I know board members read this blog and i know most of them have no idea how much we have been spending to subsidize cheap golf. Hell, most of them didn't know golf was supposed to be revenue neutral. It was never something the GM told them. Now they know.

 

So, I agree with most of what you are saying. What I hav a problem with is that you are posting statistics and probably fact that will never be acted on. It is the same as individuals posting bylaws and articles of incorporation. They have no meaning if they are not going to acted on. The board has demonstrated that they do not care about posting of bylaws and golf being heavily subsidized. Maybe, if residents bring this stuff up at board meetings, member exchanges over and over again they may listen. Will they act? Probably not. They have at least w lawyers advising them. Members have none. You can continue to post the subsidizing statistics, bylaws, and articles of incorporation till you are so frustrated you will eventually give up. That is what the lawyers and board is counting on. The statistics you post will have to be presented to the board by every attendee to board meetings and/or member exchanges. That means there will be hours added to each meeting which will result in another bylaw change further limiting member comments or opinions.
Do I sound like I’m frustrated with everything the lawyers/ board is doing to stifle member involvement and make golf self sustaining - you bet. Waiting for new board members to come aboard and change things is a dream.
Just my opinion.

 

Maybe... maybe not:
2021 Board had 2 members doing things like thinking outside the box and questioning the status quo.
2022 4 members.
2023 ?

 

Jeb's point is well and simply stated. One of the Sun City Advocate's primary goals for 2022 is the recruitment and endorsement of candidates for this years elections. We haven't hidden this fact and have so stated several times. Having a majority of board members who believe the opinions of the members should be heard is pretty straight forward. There's nothing subversive in it, hell, that's how we got to where we are today. Golfers were elected and golf became the end game as defined by the general manager.

And let's be even more clear SCR, the by-laws will be rewritten, purely because of the actions of a community who rose up and then showed up at the annual membership meeting. That doesn't mean the result will be our motions included, it simply means they have a chance to end up being put back in play. There's lots of work to do, but that's a country mile away from where we were last year at this time.

 

There's no point in belaboring this, eyesopen just posted years 2008-2014 of the 990's for Sun City. They actually go back further but the forms in 2007 only should the expense side so i couldn't back out the numbers against the revenue. Anyway, 2008-2014 resulted in another 12 million dollar shortfall that was apparently subsidized by the membership to provide for cheaper golf rates.

I think it is safe to say that since 2006 through 2019 the membership has spent in the neighborhood of 25 million dollars subsidizing golf. I know the argument is everything else is, why not golf and the simple answer is; that wasn't the way everything else was deeded to Sun City. As noted above, the community, including the elected leadership of the RCSC was terrified golf would become a money pit. Rightly so.

Now, if we can get the RCSC to publish the numbers regarding how much of the PIF budget has been spent on golf, rather than hiding the actual figures, we can begin to understand where we go and how we get there. This isn't about getting even, recovering dollars or balancing the scales. We simply need to understand where we are and how to proceed moving forward.

 

Why are we waiting for RCSC to publish the numbers when you apparently have most of that data.
You can bet the RCSC isn’t going to publish anything that put then]m in a bad light.
Why can’t the members bring this to the attention of the board and GM?
Would that be because the members have no voice anymore other than only speaking to the motions on the boards agenda?

 

While we're talking about money...

Excluding the purchase price and the renovation and construction costs of the 8th recreation center at Grand, does anybody know how much that facility has increased the cost to the RCSC's annual budget to maintain?

Did we really need to build another recreation center? Do we really need to rebuild Mountain View or should we just build a theater on that plot and keep the outdoor sport venues?

 

Good to see you back again CM. One of the many problems the community faces is the idea any one entity has all the answers. There's no question, the original intent the performing arts theater was to be at Bell. The problem with stating it should be there now is we have no idea if a 400 person theater fits on the site given the need to meet county parking requirements.

I keep hearing about a study that was done years ago (circa 2009) where every center was reviewed by the RCSC to see which one met the best perimeters for building a theater. Sadly, no one has come forward with those results. It's the kind of information that is critical to the discussion. We know there is tons of parking at Bell. What we don't know is, once a new building is added, do county codes become an issue with a mix of the existing buildings (which were built before codes and were grandfathered)? Obviously you not only need more parking but you also lose existing spaces to the new building.

In all honesty, it's why i haven't gotten all crazy about the Mountainview project. We know virtually nothing other than the costs, which are substantial, and the fact we will be losing sports venues for pickleball, lawn bowling, tennis and mini-golf. My argument has been all along we need to solve the short fall regarding pickleball courts once MV is gone. In fact, they should resolve it before they turn the first shovel.

Information is so critical in assessing anything we do. There appears to be a real lack of that to both the community and to board members. The other problem is they (last year's board) made that ridiculous proposal regarding phase 3 at MV to shut people up. In the short term it bought them some relief, in the long term members saw it for the foolishness it was. They've just become so comfortable saying shit, no one really even considers what the impact is.

Finally, let me say this at the risk of pissing off some of my cohorts. The process of determining the Mountainview rebuild was exactly the way it should work. Meet with the members, get their feedback, work with the assorted committees and come up with a plan. They did all that. I know the argument, the board drifted from the plan proposed by those involved. That said, there are all kinds of people who want to see the theater at Mountainview. The Players all want it there. The basketball and volleyball people want it there. I suspect any number of members living around it have a mixture of emotions.

M y best guess is much of the anger would subside if the RCSC built 16 pickleball courts somewhere down south. The challenge for the group of the Sun City Advocates is to think we speak for the community at large. That is dangerous thinking in my humble opinion. The Mountainview project is filled with challenges. Just the other day at the meeting they reported they were having a company determine asbestos removal costs. The mere fact the lake project increased in price by 33% in 6 months should scare the crap out of the board. What does that do to the 27 million dollar phase 1 and 2 at MV?

If the Advocates want to try and speak for the community, they best be willing to hear what the community is saying. And to be clear, not just a handful of them.