Is This Really A Strategic Long Range Plan?

Discussion in 'Sun City General Discussions' started by BPearson, Feb 28, 2023.

  1. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    I've been meaning to do this because, well, just because. I have long lamented Sun City's failure to properly plan for the future with any real strategic cohesive long range planning. We've simply bounced around like kids on a trampoline hoping it all worked out. Craziness in my opinion. You be the judge:
    Preservation and Improvement Fund (PIF) Budget Summary Spend by Project by Year Presented November 18, 2021 RCSC Board Meeting;
    *2022.

    Grand Avenue Center Building 2 $ 589,862 Mountain View Center Replacement -
    Phase 1 $ 2,000,000 Softball Clubhouse and Lighting
    $ 1,000,000 Viewpoint Lake Repair
    $ 2,000,000 Lakes East/West and Grounds Maintenance Facility $ 4,000,000
    Total 2022 $ 9,589,862
    *2023
    Viewpoint Lake Repair $ 4,000,000
    Mountain View Center Replacement - Phase 1 $ 15,462,458
    Total 2023 $ 19,462,458
    *2024
    Mountain View Center Replacement - Phase 1 $ 7,065,391
    Riverview Maintenance Facility $ 2,166,695
    Total 2024
    *2025
    $ 9,232,086 AZ Department of Water (ADWR) 5th Management Plan Golf Course Water Reduction $10,314,652
    Total 2025 $10,314,652
    *2026
    AZ Department of Water (ADWR) 5th Management Plan Golf Course Water Reduction $ 2,269,045
    Mountain View Center Replacement - Phase 2 $ 2,788,100
    Total 2026 $ 5,057,145.
    *2027
    AZ Department of Water (ADWR) 5th Management Plan Golf Course Water Reduction $ 3,468,018
    Total 2027 $3,468,018
    *2028
    AZ Department of Water (ADWR) 5th Management Plan Golf Course Water Reduction
    $ 1,565,276
    North Maintenance Facility $ 2,376,005
    Total 2028
    *2029
    $ 3,941,282 AZ Department of Water (ADWR) 5th Management Plan Golf Course Water Reduction $ 2,905,335
    Total 2029 $2,905,335
    *2030
    Mountain View Center Replacement - Phase 3 - Pickleball Pavillion $ 9,417,774
    Total 2030 $9,417,774
    *2031
    New Administration Building at Lakeview $ 2,255,145
    Mountain View Center Replacement - Phase 3 - Lawn Bowls & ADA Mini-golf $ 2,943,680
    Total 2031 $ 5,198,825
    *2032
    Lakes Patio Rebuild and Expansion $ 1,500,000
    New Administration Building at Lakeview $ 2,255,145
    Total 2032 $ 3,755,145
    *2033
    No Expenses Planned $ -
    Total 2033 $0
    *2034
    Lakeview Center Replacement $ 10,531,149
    Total 2034
    *2035
    $10,531,149 Lakeview Center Replacement
    Total 2035 $10,531,149

    Total PIF Budget $ 103,404,880.

    Not to be picky and to try and be fair, these PIF budget projections were done at the behest of the board and i think the long range planning committee. Looking at them i would argue they are undervalued from a cost perspective, which is neither here nor there for purposes of this discussion.

    What i am looking at and have argued, from 2023-2031, virtually every PIF dollar we are/will be collecting is dedicated to either Mountain View or golf course related items (including turf reduction and golf maintenance buildings). They have argued these figures are called "place holders," and the costs may well be higher than posted. We know the GM used soft inflationary figures so they in all likelihood will go higher.

    But again the point i am trying to make is the narrow focus of agenda items targeted on the PIF budget. Was it a smart allocation of resources to tie up this much money on an agenda that is so narrowly focused? Worse yet, the golf dedicated funds should be of concern when considering golf's pricing structure (especially for outsiders who contribute nothing to the ongoing infrastructure costs all of us as members are paying or have paid).

    When you think about it from the PIF cash outlay for the golf courses, it really becomes insulting to every member who is subsidizing outsiders cheap golf rates. If you understand nothing else from the RCSC data posted above, understand golf is going to continue to be a very expensive proposition going forward and that the golfing community needs to be involved in the pricing restructure.

    I know folks love screaming that all i care about is the past and our history. The reality is all of these issues have been addressed before and the board/membership always found workable answers/solutions. What we know hasn't worked is when the GM and a couple of board officers decided what was best for us.

    What's the old saying? "If you don't learn from the past mistakes you will be doomed to make them all over." Hopefully we are smarter than that. We'll see.
     
  2. Emily Litella

    Emily Litella Well-Known Member

    I'll be polite. It stinks and it's somewhat sickening.
    But we have absolutely no choice.
    Anything mandated by the ADWR comes first. Lake redo, golf course deturfing. No matter what those are the top priorities.
    What will be the price?
    It's not gonna be lower than the posted prices that's for sure.
    I have accepted that this is the way it will have to be for years to come because of the water situation. And no, I don't golf. Never have even tried it even after all the years we've been here now.
    Over the years, I have become better at not worrying myself sick over that which I have no control. (I said better not good, lol.)
    Hey, at least we have the money for the mandates without having to charge an assessment. That would be a horrible historical first.
    And our houses are still selling well here despite a crazy market everywhere.
    It'll be ok, Bill.
     
    Nia N Maxwell and Janet Curry like this.
  3. Janet Curry

    Janet Curry Well-Known Member

    Regarding turf reduction, I understand the need to go to desert landscaping. In the case where the land is not close to any residences or recreation centers, can they just stop watering and not go to the expense of new landscaping? Perhaps I am just uninformed, but the issue here is water.
     
  4. FYI

    FYI Well-Known Member

    This is something I just learned that really surprised me. I'm not suggesting we do nothing, but read the following article from 2019:

    Did you know that, "the population of the state has increased substantially from just over 1 million in 1957 to more than 7 million in 2017, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Water demand and usage has fluctuated over the decades, climbing in the mid 70's and most recently in 2011, but overall, the average amount of water used each year has leveled out."

    "Although the state's population and demand for water has grown over the decades, it uses far less today than it did in the 1950s."

    https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...age-state-uses-less-now-than-1957/2806899002/
     
    Larry and eyesopen like this.
  5. Larry

    Larry Well-Known Member

     
  6. Larry

    Larry Well-Known Member

    A lot more agricultural land in the 50’s than there is now. One of the biggest crops back then was cotton, a crop that requires lots of water.
     
    FYI and Janet Curry like this.

Share This Page