It's Not Even About Golf Anymore?

Discussion in 'Sun City General Discussions' started by BPearson, Jun 30, 2022.

  1. IndependentCynic

    IndependentCynic Active Member

    But not every activity is fully, nor equably, subsidized. The amenities (pools, exercise rooms, etc) are fully subsidized by our assessment dollars. Golf, Bowling, and virtually all clubs are only partially subsidized from assessment dollars -- the remaining funds come from members via club dues and use fees. The RCSC fights funding a lot of things they shouldn't -- eg, I remember a craft club trying for several years to get the RCSC to paint the interior walls of their clubroom, which hadn't been repainted for almost 35 years. Not even if the club paid for it. And that's the point -- all is not equal in the RCSC -- favored treatment has persisted from the early days of SC with golf the most favored. Golf is an expensive sport and the situation now is it's unclear if more than one or two people really know what golf's actual cost is and the true metrics of member usage.

    Larry, your love of golf should be no more important to the RCSC than my love of the activities I enjoy within these walls. I pay my assessment, I pay my club dues, and I have to work to help the clubs I belong to earn the money they need to exist. You pay greens fees in lieu of dues and don't have to spend your time/money making things to sell. I have no sympathy with your points when I hear numbers like $5 rounds of golf in SC -- the average greens fee across the 200 golf courses in the Phoenix valley was reported to be $61 in 2020. That's a pretty big subsidy from your fellow residents. And when I see that tens of millions of PIF money is needed to rebuild courses to deal with upcoming water restrictions, etc, I really get a hardon against the inequitable way golf is funded by the RCSC. If the golf facilities in SC need incremental money why not put an environmental surcharge per round -- a $10/round surcharge would still be a greens fee well below the Phoenix average and a good deal. After all, we've all known for more than 10 years this water crisis was going to happen. The RCSC chose to play ostrich and let the next generation of directors and residents deal with it.

    Look, we all moved to SC, paid less per sq ft for our homes than any similar area anywhere in the US and continue to pay next to nothing in taxes. But too be fair, not everyone moved to SC for golf, or even for anything else the RCSC provides -- many moved here just because this was one of the few nice places they could afford. In my opinion, the PIF has gotten out of hand and increasing environmental costs (electric, gas, water, garbage, etc) will change the affordability matrix of SC. Climate change has already caused several residents I know to relocate to more temperate locales in other states -- they simply couldn't take the heat, the high AC costs, and living mostly indoors nearly 6-months a year. In true SC style, the community will dismiss any sense o urgency and take a wait and see position. And we'll repeat all these discussions again in 6-8 years with a (mostly) new cast of residents.
     
  2. Larry

    Larry Well-Known Member

    Keep in mind the cost of the Grand Avenue project. Add in Mountain View and the other projects in line.

    And don’t blame golfers for the pricing structure. Look at the BOD and management. I totally agree that using rounds played as a barometer means nothing. When you are giving away rounds, volume is your worst enemy.
     
  3. OneDayAtATime

    OneDayAtATime Active Member

    Jean Totten as One Day At A Time

    BRAVO!!!!
     
  4. Larry

    Larry Well-Known Member

    Let’s look at this a little differently, and this has nothing to do with my love of golf by the way. For round numbers, let’s say RCSC pays $3 million a year for golf. How much do they spend on swimming? Add the costs of all the pools, maintenance, etc and what’s that number? Do the same with all the activities and then compare apples to apples. It’s easy to target one expense but keep in mind what the total budget is and where the dollars are spent. We don’t have enough information to actually know the answers and lots of people use golf as their whipping boy.
     
  5. FYI

    FYI Well-Known Member

    Let's not lose the point and the main concern! The concern is not the cost of golf, it's selling rounds of golf to outsiders for less than what it would cost for Members.
     
    eyesopen likes this.
  6. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    You're right Tom, this entire thread has been focused on outsiders golfing on our courses for a fraction of what the membership pays. Giving away our amenities has always been seen as a blight on the community; at least till now. In fact Larry's argument supports the idea the courses belong to us, the membership.

    Having said that, i wrote the Letter to the Editor regarding outside play to make a point. Golfers love to think the game is Sun City's salvation; it's not. It is another amenity in a long list of things to do that makes Sun City as attractive as it is. There was a reason the RCSC was hesitant to take ownership of the golf courses and bowling alleys. They feared they would become money pits. 10 pin bowling has been close, but we now know they are close because there is so much outside play.

    When i wrote, by the end of 2027 (28 years after the PIF began) the RCSC will have dropped 100 million dollars into golf courses, the out buildings they use and the wells and lakes, it was on the light side. It really was for members to understand how much money went into golf. The difference in how golf and alley bowling were "purchased" is wholly different than how the RCSC became the owners of everything else. None of us did the deals, but they are in fact different. Sorry, not my fault.

    The argument that golf sells homes is true. The argument that golf enhances the community is true as well. Having open green spaces is a value. The question always comes down to, at what cost? The problem as i have written a thousand times is, we simply don't know. I think both Larry, I and about 25,000 others believe we should. The bigger problem is the RCSC doesn't want us to know.

    They'd rather folks carry the argument golf is doing fine. They'd rather tout the idea that golf sells so many homes it covers the cost with the PIF collected. Let me defuse that notion with a silly exercise and i am going to error on the highest side possible while trying to support that claim. Here's the basics, roughly 2000 homes are sold every year in Sun City. We know there are roughly 4,200 golfers in the community (12%). Those figures have been pretty consistent for years.

    Let's assume of the 2000 homes sold, that 12% do nothing but golf (which is silly on its face), and that every dime of the $4000 of PIF was used to invest in the golf infrastructure. That would be 240 homes times $4000 equals $960,000. Less than a million dollars a year. Lets really get crazy and assume that same 960k was a constant for the past 28 years (this is really dumb because when PIF started it was $750.) Just to show you the folly of the argument, 28 years times 960k equals $26,880.000. Realistically, its less than half that. By the way, that 12% includes couples who both golf, so it's actually far less households but why quibble.

    Over those same 28 years (by the end of 2028) the RCSC will have spent in PIF on our golf courses roughly 75 million dollars (it could be more but they post that information nowhere). That leaves us short, even with the silly notion of a million dollars sent directly to PIF from homes purchased by golfers a shortfall of just under 50 million dollars and more realistically more than 60 million.

    The point of this exercise is the fallacy of golf courses paying for themselves through PIF. The reality, the fear they would become money pits has been realized. They are very expensive to run and operate. They will only become more so with each passing year and the water crunch we will be facing. That's in fact one of the primary reasons new age restricted communities are building and owning golf courses. The next generation of home buyers won't be golfers as much as in the past.

    Here's where Larry and i are in 100% agreement. None of us know enough of the financials; which has always been my argument with the RCSC. We also agree, measuring golf's success by the number of rounds played is pure folly. Cheap golf doesn't pay the bills. Finally, our largest point of agreement is outsiders should not, SHOULD NEVER, BE SOLD GOLF CHEAPER THAN WHAT THE MEMBERSHIP PAYS TO PLAY.

    I don't want to argue here about what members pay. I want us/the RCSC to quit giving away our amenities. We know since PIF was passed, the entire membership has subsidized golf well beyond 2 or 3 million dollars per year when taking into account both general ledger and PIF expenditures. It's an amenity that needs be supported, it should never be an amenity that all of are paying for that rewards those living outside the community to enjoy at a fraction of the real cost to maintain the courses.

    It's that freaking simple.
     
  7. Larry

    Larry Well-Known Member

    It has everything to do with the cost of golf. It’s the cost being charged non members.
     
    OneDayAtATime and BPearson like this.
  8. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Spot on Larry. Outsiders have no right to play our courses at reduced prices. NONE! From the day Sun City opened residents were complaining to the Del E Webb Corporation (DEVCO) about outside play. John Meeker assured them, those outsiders would be playing to keep the cost of golf down for the resident population. That's the way Sun City was built, more importantly, that's the way it should function these days.

    There's never been a time in our history were outside play was viewed as an upside. If anything, it was a necessary evil. While i served on the RCSC board (2012-2014), there were six board members who were avid golfers. They were adamant the tee times being sold were to outsiders were at premium prices, not bargain rate discounts. The idea non-residents would be allowed access to our web portal or worse yet, joining small groups to bypass the lottery would have been blasphemy. Hell, they got angry over the couple of rounds Golf Now got at a discount to post tee times on their site.

    We've simply traveled down the road where management now has the authority to decide what is in the members best interest.
    Since 2006, there's been a paradigm shift from a community built and run by the members to one where the board has ceded all control to the management team. Sadly the board views their role as loyalty to the hired help. It's tragic on so many levels. I had hoped the newly crafted bylaws would become a shift in the right direction but the reality is, it may be even worse than it was.

    It will be interesting to see what action is taken come Thursday's board meeting. The bare ass minimum of removing golf cars from those packages would simply be the beginning of returning Sun City to it's rightful owners; the members.
     
    Linda McIntyre, FYI and OneDayAtATime like this.
  9. IndependentCynic

    IndependentCynic Active Member

    For many it seems as simple as -- they are our courses, we paid for them, we should have a significant priority and price advantage over non-members in their use. In a perfect and simple world, at best outsiders should only be allowed to purchase a tee time that no resident wants. But the world isn't simple, nor perfect. And Larry is correct -- it's about MONEY -- if funding golf wasn't problematic outsiders would never have been allowed to play here in the first place. And everyone is right that what's been implemented by the RCSC is unfair to the membership. And the recent RCSC assertion that golf needn't be self supporting is just another trick to avoid them having to really solve the problem in a member friendly manner.

    Many on this forum have criticized the RCSC for years about their reluctance to address the inevitable golf problem. Funding golf in SC has almost always been a budgetary challenge because of the enormous fixed costs needed to maintain our 8 golf courses. Those costs are increasing dramatically each year due to climate change and environmental issues (water cost/availability, fertilizer & chemicals costs, water pollution, etc). Regardless of who/what one chooses to blame for those increases -- gov't regulations, climate, decline in golf popularity -- it is what it is and has to be dealt with. Where is the additional money to fund golf going to come from? I only see four choices -- 1)increase the number of rounds played, 2)increase member assessments, 3)increase greens fees, or 4)close courses. Whatever course of action is taken it will cause discord. Long ago the RCSC chose allowing non-member golfers as their means of increasing revenue to fund golf. It was a kick the can solution to the longer term issues with golf, and it sorta worked for awhile -- but now has reached the flashpoint of member revolt. The concessions given, presumably to attract sufficient revenue from non-member golf, has resulted in what many see as inequitable treatment of members. Transparency of the problem details and involving members in the solutions would likely have created a longer lasting solution with better member support. So, once again, the RCSC is caught in their self-inflicted web of autocracy.

    Many new retirement communities are now built w/o their own golf course (but near and existing courses), and some existing communities have converted their golf courses for multi-use -- eg, golf part of the day, dog park/walking/bicycling trail part of the day. A long term solution in SC will require differing factions to accept some compromise -- that's unlikely without full transparency of the details and facts of the situation. How can anything be in the "best interests of the members" if the members have less than full knowledge of the details, inputs to the solution, and the option of dissent?
     
  10. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Perfect assessment IC; "kicking the can down the road." Because everything regarding golf has been the most closely held secret since JFK was assassinated and the documents buried, no one really knows how good or bad it really is. I am the first to admit, any of the numbers posted during the past 10 years i have been doing this are simply what i can ferret out of the limited financials the RCSC posts. To Bill Cook's credit, he's been more open than anything the previous gm posted; anywhere at anytime.

    On the other hand at least one former board member, claiming to be smarter than the rest of us, claims golf is kicking ass this year on the financials. Who am i to argue with his genius? The problem is, if that's the case, then we have no need of outside full play passes. Of course, for him to be right, it would mean the numbers sent to the federal government on the 990 forms are in error. We know from those forms what the expense side looks like, for the first time in our history. It's not pretty.

    We also know, the expense side is only going to get worse. It's why the RCSC business model doesn't work. Cheap golf will never pay the bills. You cannot keep golf courses open when you let people play for $5 a round. Sorry, it is simply impossible. Nobody wants to look at that. They just want to crow about 350,000 rounds of golf being played. Full play passes, especially to non-residents simply reduce available tee times that could be taken by members. The real question how many of those tee times would/could be sold at full price rates of $35 to members or $46 to outsiders (Nov-April)?

    There's a reason newly built age restricted communities are building or owning golf courses. There's no future in it. That said, i have argued not to over-react. The fallout from the 5th water management plan (2025) by the ADWR is going to cause a ripple affect across the Arizona golf community. The courses on the bubble will be facing the difficult choice of paying up to convert to desert landscaping or sell the land for 20 or 30 times what they paid for it to land developers.

    That's when the can cannot be kicked down the road any longer. The good news is, the RCSC won't worry about it. The bad news is, we'll all have to pay up. Money appears to be no problem for them. The private courses, hardly the case. What does have to happen and why i have been on this soapbox is because it can't just be business as usual. I know that pains people, but it is time for the RCSC to get honest with all of us about golf and the real numbers.

    I am no golf expert. I've said this time and time again. I don't have the answers, it's why i have encouraged this subject be shared openly with the golfers in the community and let them sort it out. I know everyone has their vested interest. Hell, yesterday i was cautioned by a friend i am too hard on golf. I asked him if he had a bunch of friends who bought full play passes and of course the answer was yes. Everyone wants what they want, especially if someone else has to pay for it.

    The RCSC has had the same formula for golf as long as i have lived here (nearly 20 years). It is a business model/plan that was tolerable when the cost to run our courses wasn't so steep. I know it's a sacred cow to a small minority of the residents. I also know, the only thing we are advocating for is non-residents buying full play passes who are paying half the going rate of what a RCSC member pays when they step on one of the golf courses they own.

    Fix that, and then let the golfing community take ownership of how the courses function. That's what self-governance is about, that's how Sun City was built and why it was so successful.
     
    eyesopen likes this.
  11. Larry

    Larry Well-Known Member

    I don’t think anyone is opposed to outside play. Every course in the area welcomes it and encourages it. We are all competing for the golfer’s dollar. I’m complaining about cheap golf being sold to outsiders. Your statement about more rounds being the solution should be modified to say more paid rounds. Free rounds just compounds the problem.
     
    Linda McIntyre likes this.
  12. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Agreed Larry, cheap golf has been the RCSC business model; it's folly, especially during a time when golf has experienced a resurgence. I would encourage every RCSC board member and candidate to watch the Sun City West annual membership meeting. They sell a boatload of outside golf rounds. It's never done by selling cheap golf and it's never done at the expense of tee times members want; member's have an early preference, as they should.

    I've played both Sun City West and Sun City Grand courses, they are nicer. Mostly because they are way newer and more visually interesting and challenging. They also are way more expensive. We can easily beat them price wise and still charge rates that subsidize the Sun City golfing community. The idea we sell our courses to outsiders for next to nothing is a fool's game. We don't need to, we never have and we never should.
     
    Larry likes this.
  13. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Just a quick reminder at the board meeting tomorrow is a motion to remove guaranteed golf cares from non-member full play passes. It's not the perfect solution, but it at least deals with part of the problems caused by selling them at all. I won't belabor this post, listen to what is said and how the board members vote. It's the first step in helping you decide on who to vote for in the coming election.
     
  14. Larry

    Larry Well-Known Member

    It’s also rare to go to any Sun City course and not see a vehicle with a trailer attached that belongs to a non-resident who is taking advantage of our cheap golf rates for outsiders. Not just annual pass rates, but daily rates are cheaper here than their home courses.
     
  15. aggie

    aggie Well-Known Member

    Just curious as to why it just didn't just prohibit including a cart for Non-Member full play passes. The way it reads excludes a cart for Members, too.
     
  16. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Apparently there's been some discussion that RCSC members wanting to rent golf cars should simply buy the non-resident full play pass for $2,750. The argument was that was how they could be insured a golf car and not have to own their own. The laughable aspect is this: A member full play pass is $1,550 with no car. A non resident full play pass with no golf car is $2,250. Think about that for a minute. We are telling members if they want a golf car the cost is $1,200 and for non-members that same golf car is $500.

    This entire discussion/proposition is so far removed from reality, even i struggle to get my head around it. There is no pass sold for members insuring a reduced price golf car, we've somehow decided only non-members should have that privilege. Give you head a shake gang, it's the new normal in Sun City.
     
  17. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    By now i am sure everyone knows the board tied in the vote (4/4) to remove golf cars from full play passes to non-members. So the motion was defeated. Non-residents win again over the members...think about that for one second. Better yet, we were served up this tasty solution from the gm: "members can always find a golf car somewhere, so if they just go searching around the community, there should be a golf car available for them at one of the courses." To be honest, i am paraphrasing that, but effectively that is what he said. Watch it if you don't believe me.

    It is indeed another point to ponder; we are flat out guaranteeing non-residents golf cars at the course of their choice (and btw bypassing the lottery by joining small groups of 30 or more) and renting them to them at a fraction of the cost a member would pay. If that's not bad enough, you as a member need go searching for a course, see if they have a golf car and then see if there is an available tee time. Unfreaking believable.

    I asked an old friend after the meeting, who is an avid golfer and knows more of the female golfing community than anyone i know, why none of them are coming? She didn't blink and said, no one thinks they will fix it, they just do what they want. It's the mantra i have heard for years now; why bother, they don't care what we think.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2022
    Larry and eyesopen like this.
  18. Linda McIntyre

    Linda McIntyre Well-Known Member

    The attitude of the GM is beyond my comprehension, but the fact that the motion was defeated on a tie vote tells me something more. The fact that the RCSC Board buys that nonsense is incomprehensible. Maybe its time to graciously remove themselves; possibly be recalled, or be soundly defeated this fall! His remarks and that attitude, plus the fact that half of our Board goes along tells me that they don't give a rat's ars about golfers or any of us for that matter. I'm no longer a golfer, but I don't pay my assessment for non-residents to get the deal of a lifetime to use our amenities. I want our Clubs supported, our golfing friends given priorities, our security protected, etc. It truly is about money, and money alone. I'm really tired of them being tone deaf.

    And, one more thing...I think the carry forward money needs a closer review.
     
    Larry, eyesopen, FYI and 1 other person like this.
  19. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Hey Linda, there's a lot of things that need a closer review. The long heard cry, "trust me" has outlived its shelf-life. Board members have a fiduciary responsibility to know the numbers, not just be told they are fine and not to worry everything is good. It's the new normal.

    It's why history is so critical. Those first 50 years were built around member/board interaction. The general manager, and there were a boatload of them, ran the day to day operations. Everything changed in 2006 when the newly hired gm redefined the role. With each passing year, the control shifted away from members. The board was offered the ability to minimize their workload and the management team assumed the responsibilities. Was it a smart shift?

    History speaks volumes on that question. It's why i use it as the benchmark, the measuring stick. I understand why over the past 15 years they have ran from our history, it's make them look genius when they claim they were the ones that made Sun City what it is. Everything was here, everything was in place for us to become what we are. I've written this more times than i can count, the game changer was the 1999 board of directors and passing the Preservation and Improvement Fund (PIF).

    Think in these terms, from 2000 when the first funds were available, through 2030, the RCSC will have collected more than 200 million dollars. Their job has been to spend it wisely. Which begs the question, have they? Lot's of good stuff, lots of misses as well. I would argue, by removing the membership and letting management decide our future, our fate has been far less effective than had we allowed the membership's involvement.

    John Meeker, the genius behind Sun City's success, was smart enough to get out of the way and let the membership build the community of their dreams. Not the general manager and not 5 or 6 board members. We are exactly where we are based on the vision of a very few. If you think not, simply watch what has happened since the April member/board exchange. The golfing members of the community spoke out loudly, letters to the editors repeated the lament; outsiders don't belong using our amenities for a fraction of the price members pay to play.

    We know historically, that never happened. Meeker freely admitted he sold tee times to non-residents to subsidize golf but it was always more expensive for them and it was done when members weren't typically playing. Which is really interesting because DEVCO owned the courses and were using them to sell homes. They knew someday the RCSC would take ownership (1977) and they understood they would want them to be for the members. In fact, the agreement to take ownership forced DEVCO to rid themselves of outside play.

    We've simply evolved to a point where management tells us we (the membership) has to accept non-members being allowed to buy half price golf. They argue without it, we are in trouble financially. Saying that brings me to tears; with carryover, we've shoveled more than 10 million dollars into cash accounts via the "carry-forward." Which by the way was money that should have been spent on the membership, clubs and services.

    That too would never been the case. Board's used to be accountable for the decisions regarding spending, now days much of that has been left to management with no one asking why, what or who? Most would be hard-pressed to argue the decisions of employees are better than the decisions made from the owners of the community. Of course, that's just one man's opinion...but it is steeped in our history.
     
    Larry likes this.
  20. Linda McIntyre

    Linda McIntyre Well-Known Member

    I think we should be concerned about their lack of transparency about their use of carry forward. In my opinion, it shouldn't decrease from month to month unless there is an approved expenditure, which could be the case with the approved exercise equipment. But, it needs to be shown. It's a big number and continues to grow. It's not a slush fund. We just need transparency.
     
    eyesopen likes this.

Share This Page