RCSC IRS 990 2021

So if you were given two passes, would you be happy? How do you satisfy the people that don’t take advantage of any amenities because of health issues? How do you handle that? If you want to pay less, somebody has to pay more.

 

• So if you were given two passes, would you be happy? No, I willingly pay my assessment with benefit of one optional membership benefit. Every paid assessment should have the same benefit of one optional membership.
• How do you satisfy the people that don’t take advantage of any amenities because of health issues? How do you handle that? Comply with: Pursuant to RCSC’s Restated Articles of Incorporation, Corporate Bylaws, and Board Policies, each and every Owner is obligated to pay assessments and fees imposed when due, whether or not Owners occupy the Property or use RCSC facilities.
• If you want to pay less, somebody has to pay more. Again, not suggesting single deeded pay less. Issue is not about the assessment…it’s about the optional benefit!

If RCSC insists they can only budget by “lot” assessment, the optional benefit must be based on “lot,” nothing else.
One paid “lot” annual assessment should receive one optional membership benefit.

 

What about absentee owners? Do they get two passes? And who qualifies for your second pass? Have you heard about the issues of outside play on our golf courses? What’s your suggestion going to do to improve everyone’s experience?

 

Larry, those questions must be for someone else. I have more than adequately answered the original topic lot assessment/membership benefit issue.

 

Absentee owners either get one or two passes for their lot assessment. It depends on how many people are listed as owners on the deed. If there is only one name on the deed, it is one RCSC card; two if there are two names on the deed. If there are more than two, there are no additional Member cards available.

 

I don't see why people would pay less. The single would pay $525. The couple would pay $525 each if they both wanted to use the Rec Centers or $525 if only one or none did.

 

Interesting. Are you suggesting that would be for everyone old and tired, or just on newly purchased properties?

 

Seems to me that if the assessment is based on the property and pay the $525, then every property should get 2 RCSC Membership Cards regardless of how many names are on the deed!

It also kinda doesn't seem fair that if a homeowner, who lives hundreds of miles away, rents their house to a Snowbird, and even though the home owner isn't going to use the facilities, the renters still have to purchase a Rec Card but can only do so if the homeowner has paid their assessment!

Seems to me the Rec Card comes with the property and the assessment!

And they say we're not in business to make money?

Am I missing something?

 

I would like it for everybody, but new purchasers would probably be easier to get done.

 

I don't like the idea of every property getting 2 rec cards. Who will people give the other one to? A boyfriend? Thats fine until they break up. A relative? Fine until an argument and they quit speaking to each other. How about people that will sell them? This is where the intent sounds fine, but the possible results can be terrible. Thats why I want 1 card per property and more money for the second one.

 

I think Tom has a great idea, but there would need to be limits on who could use the recreation cards to avoid the things that "old and tired" mentioned. Definitely someone living in or renting the property. We don't want owners selling them on Facebook Marketplace!

 

So your formula doubles the annual assessment for married couples. That is a non-starter. How you figure nobody is paying more is beyond me

 

So there's currently nothing now that stops a Member from passing their key fob membership identification tag out.

 

The required annual assessment would not change, currently $525 per lot.

There would be one optional membership benefit offered with payment of the assessment.

Any additional resident membership associated with the property would be $525 per individual.

All other senior communities charge this way,
See 2023 per property for two memberships comparison chart here.

 

Who said no one would pay more?

 

Giving them to renters would eliminate a lot of the money made on Privilege Cards.

 

I've made a point of staying away from this discussion because any effort to change the current structure would result in a nightmare scenario for the current board (just my opinion). That said, old and tired has perhaps the most doable idea to date. Grandfather existing couples and new buyers to be the ones to bite the bullet getting one card and paying for the second. I would be curious to hear eyesopen response to that? I suspect the agenda was more in line with cutting the current payment in half for singles while doubling all the current couples.

The bigger concern on doubling the fee for couples going forward is the impact on sales. We already know they are down, the question is how much more they would fall off...a lot or a little? It would also create a messy situation going forward. We'd have the grandfathered pre-2003 singles paying one rate, the newly grandfathered couples paying another and the new buyers who were couples paying the $1050 per year (if they choose to pay the higher rate).

There was a point in Sun City West's history where owners were bragging about not having to pay for their spouse. If memory serves me, it was never an option, but some buyers treated it as such. Sometimes "solving" problems creates more issues than it resolves.