Let's Talk SAC...

I've spent the last couple of days pouring over the Strategic Planning Committee's meeting and reports. Interesting and what makes me curious, is anyone listening to what is being said? Or, is each group just looking at what they want?

My fear is it is the latter, as almost everything posted is focused on what is in the best interest of the group making the presentation at any given moment. I did read where some felt looking beyond just MV was beyond their purview. Frankly, that's the exact kind of short-sighted thinking that got us into the situation we are in now.

Here's my quite crude disclaimer: I don't give two-shirts where the theater goes. Cleaned it up a bit so no one was offended. What i do care about is whatever we do makes sense and fits our budgeting needs. And to be even more clear, the more i read, the better i understand why the board put this whole monstrosity on hold.

If you haven't been following you need to start digging. Here's why: Included on the RCSC SAC page is the report Jim Wellman gave to the GM and the board in 2010. It was a lengthy process where he did a pretty deep dive into what kind of a theater could be built on all of the available sites they had to choose from. Perhaps eyeopen can copy and paste his report.

Yikes!

I had heard this report had been generated, i never saw it until yesterday. I went back and reread it again today. Even when i was on the RCSC board, we never saw it. I find it fascinating it's now an open book for the members to read in all it's gory detail. And read it they should.

The tragedy, in my mind is, several members of the SAC appear to be treating this as a throwaway. Almost like it doesn't exist. The other problem is they have posted the projected costs for each of the phases...and they are from 2021. We know those numbers are what were loving called "placeholders." It's just a polite way of saying we really don't have a clue what the real cost of building anything is.

In summary, we all need to be realistic about how much we spend at MV. It would be a fascinating exercise in what we actually want by telling the MV users, we have 20 million dollars to spend on a renovation, what is it you actually want/need?

One more item to add to the mix: How long are you willing to let the project drag on to get those things you want? Is one year too long? Two years? Remember this, the more construction they do, the longer the project takes and you all are displaced.

Blunt honesty is an amazing motivator.

 

No doubt about it Bill, they're putting the cart before the horse!

With all the upcoming mandatory expenses, like water reduction on the golf courses, increasing utility costs, inflation, etc., let's first determine exactly how much money is really available!

I know I keep on beating a dead horse but Sun City doesn't need another elaborate recreation center when a) we're not a growing community and they've already expanded the number of our rec centers to 8 when they purchased and built the Grand center, and b) Fairway is less than 1 mile away, and c) the data will show you that none of our facilities are used anywhere near their capacity. It's just that everybody wants to use them at the same time of day!

Perhaps the fairer way for the SAC Committee to have structured itself would have been to have more Members who do not have an affiliation with Mountain View on the committee? Too many people with to many personal agendas.

Time to get real! Yeah, I would love for my next car to be a Bugatti Veyron but I haven't got an extra 1.9 million dollars laying around! I need to live within my means!

Think about the entire community and the additional costs that the Grand Center alone created with staffing, maintenance, utilities, etc. The cost of these rec centers don't end once they are built or renovated!

It would be interesting to learn what the yearly average operating cost is for each of our 8 recreation centers.

And I hope Eyesopen can find and post that Jim Wellman report!

 

Ask and ye shall receive…HERE

February 20, 2010
Site Analysis Performing Arts Center
By Jim Wellman ( RCSC Assistant GM)
See Page two and three
This was presented at the SAC 6.2.2023 meeting, “Historic Performing Art Center.”

(Had to include the whole presentation because we can’t post photos of just the two pages here.)

 

Awesome eyesopen, i knew you could do it. You never5 fail to amaze.

 

Thanks Eyesopen!

Nicely done report. I'm sure much time and effort was needed to compile all that information, however...

I can't seem to find what the seating capacity at the MV theater current is! Sorry, but I can't extrapolate the seating capacity based on the number of parking spaces! Just trying to get a handle on what's been proposed and what is currently available?

How does the 376 seating capacity at Pebble Creek compare to the current seating at MV? If the proposed seating capacity of a new theater is significantly less than what is currently available, are the Players willing and able to double-up on their performances? From what I've been hearing from the SAC committee, it seems like seating for 350 is what's being proposed?

Not criticizing, just curious!

 

CURRENT SEATING
Only thing I found.
Chart of modified theater seating during pandemic.
See HERE
Calculating full seats normally available:
12 rows of 20 = 240
12 rows of 19 = 228
TOTAL SEATS = 468

Article:
Sun City Players ticket sales reveal new seating
THEATER
Sun City Indepedent, July 16, 2021

 

PROPOSED SEATING
Ad-Hoc Long Range Planning Committee Mountain View Center
Presented June 8, 2020
(Relevant excerpt)
Theater/Auditorium:
1. 400 permanent comfortable theater seats (22”) at an angle with no steps
Full three page report HERE

Article:
Mountain View center report approved by Sun City rec board
Will include theater, gymnasium
Read HERE
June 11, 2020 Sun City Independent

 

Plays at Mountainview are never more than 280 chairs.

 

Attendance is usually under 300 at any performance?

 

I'm not sure of attendance, but there are 280 seats.

 

Good discussion and well needed. The SAC's efforts have been fascinating to watch. While the former board president used to chirp about how much data matters, it clearly wasn't the criteria used in may of their decisions. If it had been, we wouldn't be looking at a 40 to 50 million dollar boondoggle at MV. And so you all understand, several of the directors in the minority status on the board asked to see the 2009/2010 report and they would not show them. Now we all get to see it. That's progress.

I've long loved the idea of a larger PAC venue to get maximum value and utilization. The SAC's efforts to date have brought me back down to earth. If no senior community is building anything bigger than 300 seats, that's where we belong. If theater's around the country are downsizing and becoming more intimate, that's where we belong. There's another number that is quite telling and should not be ignored: Players number of members: 2011/275. Players number of members March 2022/94. Data matters.

So we are crystal clear, 20 million dollars is purely an arbitrary number i grabbed it because it was an amount available after we pay for the lake, the softball building and other items that may be needed that can be covered with PIF. It could be more, it could be less dependent on what they build. The thing that is abundantly clear is all the pie in the sky crap the 2021 board threw at us would not fit there. Don't argue with me, read Wellman's report. He identified two possible sites, neither of which was MV.

From what i have garnered, the Players want seating for 400. If that's the case, their best bet is to wait for a Lakeview rebuild where the PAC situated on the lake would be, could be, should be even larger. Something that becomes a multi-use space holding potential seating comparable the to Sun Dial with partitions allow for downsizing as needed. Anything we build should be flexible enough to pivot if the downward trending of theaters and plays continues. If you think i am wrong, simply google it, the data is there.

The decisions made this year will set the tone and direction for the future. The road we were on was truly a road to ruin. At some point reality has to set and making practical decisions based on needs (not wants) has to become our (the community's) focus.

By the way, welcome Paul Higgins.

 

The SAC pretty much wrapped up their presentations last Friday. There may be one more this coming Friday but the bulk of the meeting will be an open round table discussion on their work to date. There's been a plethora of proposals and ideas that are all with some merit. Kudos to everyone involved. It's been an impressive exercise in community building and involvement.

Let me cut to the chase because the one thing missing through everything i have watched or read, is my biggest concern in all of this: What is the cost and how much are we willing to spend? It's the elephant in the room and cannot be ignored. Nor can we pretend we can afford to do anything and everything to make members happy. It's exactly why rolling the Lakeview discussion into the mix is so critical. MV isn't a one-off, but a connected process of preparing for the future. The long range planning committee has been telling the board and the gm that for years; they just didn't bother to listen or care.

It's pretty clear, at some point reality has to set in and becoming practical has to become the driver in the decision making process. And to be really blunt, i have no interest in hearing those living in Phase 1 tell us how they are being ignored. They're not, nor have they been. A third of SC population lives there, the other two-thirds are north of Grand Ave. Off the top of my head here's some PIF expenditures (some ball-park because there's nowhere these figures are posted):
1). Fairway: 16.2 million dollars
2). North golf course and pro shop: 6.5 million dollars.
3). Grand Ave Center: 10 million dollars (wild ass guess)
4). South Pro shop; 4 million dollars (wild ass guess).
5). Now softball building (projected 1 million dollars).

There's also been a new maintenance building at the South course (the old one burned down) and constant improvements and facelifts at the Oakmont Rec Center. These were the first amenities built and needed the most attention. That said, pretending they are the only ones needing attention is folly. We cannot and should not ignore the needs of the rest of the community. We simply cannot afford to be that close-minded.

With that data out of the way, i am all in on a plan to make the most southern rec center and one of the smallest footprints in our amenity package all it can be. I'm just not interested in mortgaging our future to make it a show-stopper venue that spends us into oblivion. That's where we were headed and why this effort by SAC was so important.

 

You've got to be kidding me, right?

I believe the new maintenance building at the Lakes East/West Golf Course cost 4 million dollars and is at least 20 times the size of what the proposed softball building can be?

I'm not denying that the softball building isn't needed, but what the heck are they building for 1 million dollars?

 

It's actually an interesting comment discussion Tom, because the million dollar price tag was what we loving called a "place holder." The GM was tasked to give us his best projections. That's all they were which is why the MV remodel and costs associated with it has been meaningless. Ultimately whether it be the new softball building or whatever the SAC moves forward with, the board needs to come forward to the membership with the real cost to build whatever they are going to build. That's what transparency is all about.

 

And what effect that could/would possibly have on our annual assessment? We can't just keep on spending money we don't have just to placate those who want it now!

 

WANT what we NEED!
We know what PIF funds that are available.
As many have already said, “Live within our means.
That’s how most of us have lived our lives!

 

I know the comment was made at a SAC meeting about having 27 million dollars available, i see no logical reason to spend that much. I think adding a sports pool and upgrading the existing "resort pool" are givens. With the larger pools and outdoor spa added, nice locker rooms are a must (in my opinion). Outdoor showers are fine, but lots of folks prefer decent changing areas and those there now are old and dated.

I don't see a lot of push back on adding the pickleball courts to make the size on par with Marinette (27 courts). Enclosing (with a roof) them may be problematic, simply because it changes the number of county required parking spots. Keeping and updating the mini-golf also seems like a given so we have one course in phase 1. There's currently 3 in phase 2 and none in phase 3. One could argue the Bell mini-golf is just across the road from phase 3. The other 2 are at Sun Dial and Lakeview. Do we need 4 mini-golf courses? Again a decision to be made when we do the Lakeview remodel.

Which brings it all back down to the question of having both a fitness area and a PAC at MV. Several questions: Do we need both? Can we afford both? If we do build both what number of parking spaces will we need? If we commit to both, how much time will it take for completion? All of those questions should be both asked and answered before we start any work.

The previous board's Taj Mahal was ludicrous on its face. It wasn't just the cost, because an 8 year plan to finish was painful to even try and contemplate. They were making decisions in a vacuum of "what do we need to say and do to get re-elected?" Frankly, it's why they lost, those of us living here, as eyesopen pointed out, have always tried to function by living within our means. We need to stay that course.

 

And do we really need 4 Recreation Centers in Phase One?

We already have Oakmont, Fairway, the Grand Center which includes the Vintage Vehicle Building in Phase One and Mountain View would make it 4!!! All within a community where for all practical purposes, the population doesn't grow!

Go ahead and bite my head off but I think an argument can be made that Sun City has bloated itself with Rec Centers and Golf Courses and we really don't need another asset that we seemly can't afford to properly maintain with our current capitol improvement funds or personnel let alone the cost to build?

I would still like to know, on average, what it costs to maintain a single Rec Center considering, maintenance, staff, and utilities. And the dreamers and wishful thinkers want another Taj Mahal without considering the additional financial burden on the community!

 

Interesting comments and let me say, i don't agree. And to be clear, there are already 4 centers (Oakmont, Fairway, Mountain View and Grand Center), 3 golf courses (North, South and Quail Run) plus the Sun Bowl and the softball field in Phase 1. None of those will be closing, nor should they. We absolutely need to address the MV project and quickly. The center is a mess. Boards have been promising fixes for years and just let stuff turn to crap. We could debate why, but what's the point?

I hate the argument Phase 1 is treated as a second class citizen. It simply isn't true. As i wrote somewhere, a third of the homes are in Phase 1, the other two thirds are north of Grand Ave. They have the oldest amenities and need to be addressed. The question in my mind, as in every project we do, at what cost? We do not have unlimited resources so as others have noted what we do have needs to be spent wisely. Who the hell would argue that point (other than maybe the Players)?

I would also point out, while some say Sun City won't grow, i think they are wrong. Within the next ten years, our three private country clubs will all face the ugly choice of closing or going broke (at which point they then close). We know the RCSC's cost (20 million dollars and rising) to convert to desert landscaping in 2025, because of the 5th water management plan, will hit them as well. The conversion to desert landscaping will cost them (the owners) twice or more than what they bought the courses for. They simply cannot afford to do it so the alternative is to let the roughs go to dirt. What golfer in their right mind is going pay premiums prices to play golf on courses with dirt roughs? The state may give them some additional time to get it done but the math doesn't work. Especially when the land they are sitting on is worth 20 to 30 million dollars to a developer.

Carole's concerns about what is happening with conditions in the community (right now phase 1) are real. For those of you paying attention back in the spring of 2022 we heard a presentation by the general manager that talked about what other communities had done to stop the decay. It all centered around technology. There were in fact two proposals, either or perhaps both made sense. The reality was we could do neither because our technology wasn't capable to handle either. It still isn't.

I hate to remind people but the long range planning committee had been begging the board/GM to address our technology needs for years (beginning before 2010). It fell on deaf ears. Director Totten made a presentation at the 7/7 SAC meeting and included the importance of any new construction having the capacity to include up to date technology. I'm not sure anyone cared or paid attention.

I attended the SAC meeting yesterday, i'll share my thoughts from it in another thread. Everything we do is just another puzzle piece that fits together somewhere. Like any good jigsaw puzzle, it's never easy or fast, but always awesome when finished.