URGENT UPDATE ON SUN CITY LIBRARIES

What do/did the RCSC board directors know?

Questions needing answers…

From the SAVE OUR LIBRARIES website:

“What We Know So Far

If RCSC Board Members knew about this (Three said they did, one is adamant that they did not.) We HAVE NOT talked to all Board Members yet. As of 3/30/24 AM, two board members have reached out to the Friends and indicated that the Board has never formally discussed this, and that any knowledge any other Board members they had was anecdotal. We'd love to hear from other board members and get their public support.”
https://saveoursuncitylibraries.weebly.com/

 

Lot of money being allocated to projects ( 2 humidifiers, dog facility $2.5 million total) before 5 year plan finalized. I wonder if these two projects are in the new 5 year plan? And is the library situation addressed in the plan. I just wish the plan was complete before allocating this money.

 

So i asked the other day at the meeting about the delay in the 5 year plan? I was told in addition to the 5 year reserve study they wanted to roll out the long range funding plan (i think what we formerly posted as the PIF Budget).

The problem of course was it was just a bunch of numbers stuck on a page that were incorrect and meaningless when push came to shove. More often than not they were used as a tool to get rid of members clamoring for something and rather than the board telling them no, they stuck it on the PIF budget to get them to go away. It was said the other day at the meeting as an observation: It appears the RCSC has gotten pretty lax in their structure and we need to develop better policies and procedures (paraphrasing).

Just freaking duh! We used to be more/better disciplined. When we had real checks and balances with real committees committed to the process, we were far more effective. When we turned over running the community to the gm, things changed. The goals were admirable, the execution not so much. Fixing/restoring it will be painfully slow.

Adding to the challenge is the mindset of i want what i want, no matter the cost or the impact.

 

I agree! I wish they would stop allocation dollars to a PIF project when they have no idea when they can address that project or what it will cost!

When they allocated those dollars for the dog training building did they subtract that 1.5 millions dollars out of the current value of the PIF?

Why can't there simply be put on a Priority Project List? Add future desirable projects to the list and address them one at a time when the dollars do come available?

Requesting dollars just so the project can be looked into is pure BS! Any company out there worth its salt will gladly respond to a basic RFQ without cost!

And if they're looking for more room how about shutting down a golf course? We have 8 of our own and 11 within the area! Yeah I know, but think about the expense involved to maintain just one!

How about minimizing the Mountain View project and concentrate on mainly putting a PAC and dog training building at that location? With Fairway only 8 tenths of a mile away from MV it makes no sense to me to duplicate what's already available at Fairway, except the neighborhood "I want" crowd will get pissed-off but they need to realize that that facility is not just theirs, it belongs to the entire community!

Just my opinion!

 

We all know about the deed restrictions on golf courses, but the planning committee is truly being diligent in making every attempt to put a comprehensive plan before the Board AND the membership with as much accurate information as possible. This is long overdue, the frustration is heard and understood and the committee members and senior management appointed by the GM are working hard to create a product that can lead us to a better future.

Adjustments are made to the plan as needed as we meet. The dog facility was on the "list," but had no dollar amount - now it does. But after the new plan is approved, new procedures must be adopted as to how a project get added and that's also being worked on. The Board must adhere to those policies unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances. It must include not just PIF dollars, but future operating costs and capital needs, and proposed locations. Putting a project on the PIF for 2025 with no location? It's a scramble and another operations budget impact.

 

I do believe, however, there is a 10 year limit on golf course remaining as a golf course!

I believe the Arizona Revised Statutes requires renewal every 10 years, and even if the golf course property is sold to a contractor seven years into the covenant, he cannot start any construction for 3 more years and until the 10 year limit has expired!

I'm no expert on this, but this is what I believe so far. There are ways to do it but there are tax issues involved!

42-13154. Covenant not to convert golf course to another use; violation; penalty

A. As a condition for valuation under this article, the owner of a golf course shall record a deed restriction with the county recorder and file a copy of the restriction with the county assessor, restricting the property to use as a golf course for at least ten years. The deed restriction must be refiled as necessary to ensure that the deed restriction always applies for at least ten years.

B. The valuation of a golf course under this section constitutes a covenant between the county assessor and the owner of the golf course that the use of the property will remain unchanged for the duration of the deed restriction.

C. The assessor shall maintain a record of the value of the property determined under this article and the value of the property if it had not been determined under this article. The assessor shall maintain the record for at least ten years for use in computing the penalty under subsection D if the property is converted to a different use in violation of the covenant.

D. If the property is converted to a different use in violation of the covenant, the assessor shall add to the tax levied against the property on the next tax roll a penalty equal to the difference between the total amount of property taxes that would have been levied on the property for the preceding ten years or the period of time the property was valued under this section, whichever period is shorter, if the property had not been valued under this section and the property taxes that were actually paid for the same period. The penalty due under this subsection shall be paid before completion of the next property tax roll and is enforceable and subject to the same penalties and interest as if the penalty were a tax levied against the property.

 

FYI you are so on target with your comments!

Thank you for your input Linda. and I appreciate the effots being expended by the committee, but there feels as if there is a clear disconnect between the information being collected and dissemination of this information. I feel there are many peices of information that could be afforded a review by the membership, if even a cursory overview as to the direction items are going in.

Yes there are deed restrictions on the golf courses, and at some point those will also need to be addressed in light of the costs of these items to the membership. Once again, too few members using the facilities to warrant the costs to the entire community. Yes, I said that out loud.

There appears to be a great need to put a hold on additional spending until such time all proposed actions can be reviewed by the membership. This spend and see methodology seems haphazrd at best.

 

There are indeed ten year renewal agreements on at least 7 of our golf courses (the ones purchased at the same time in 1977). Quail Run was bought a year or so later with a little different agreement.

 

Has there been refilings of the convenant conditions as mentioned above, done every 10 years? Or has it been taken for granted these restictions were an intangible/unreachable asset to be held in perptuity without a need to be reviewed?

Again, items the board should have been alerted to and apprised of, and it does not show anywhere there are minutes in regards to such actions.

 

Carol - I will just say a LOT of things are being talked about and I'm sure once a new plan is put forth there will be a lot more, as there should. At what point should we continue to duplicate many services at all centers. If ADWR costs us the projected millions for our golf courses, do we make some hard decisions? We could face some very tough decisions. Thank you for speaking up!

 

This is also why I believe a 10-15 year plan should be developed. If a five year can be done a 15 year can be done. Possibly with less detail than the 5 year. A 15 year plan would take much of the guesswork out and I believe make it much easier for us members to understand our financials. Do it for the MEMBERS, please!

And a 15 year plan would have to have much flexibility for change, though with smart forethought should not need much. Just my opinion!

 

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I'll be pushing up daisies in 15 years! I look forward and thank God for each new day and could care less about what happens 5 years from now let alone 15! Lol!

 

I have said that several times myself on here.

 

If you think shutting down a golf course would save money, I would have to even guess what it would cost to defend against the lawsuits that would be filed by the homeowners whose homes are around the property. The only thing closing a course would do would eliminate any income generated from the golfers. Maintenance costs would continue

 

Understand your perspective FYI. A 15 year plan should go a long ways to help other members understand why certain decisions are being made. I’m guessing you would appreciate that concept.

Also, members could see projected revenues beyond the 5 year outlook. I believe our situation is not as lousy as some opine. So with a 15 year plan on the books, the five year plan might be better understood. All about “education” and most importantly, “transparency “.

 

Deleted reply by accident. Maybe I will look for it later.Happy Easter to all

 

So much to unpack here with so many people impatient.

A five year plan takes time, especially since B &F has been working with LRP to formulate a plane that is in touch with reality. You have $20M backlog which $6M is being done this year. So for the next five years you have a $14M backlog with currently about $8M in cash reserve plus ordinary capital expenses to be considered plus long range projects to get rolling. This is more than a bunch of numbers in a page. This takes time, patience and compromise. People complain where is the plan, why is it taking so long and you will wind up whining in the end. You want a bunch of numbers slap dash on a page, the committee will accommodate you. Why does everybody want everything RFN? Complex matters take time and discussion. B &F is also tasked with providing a ten year, thirty year and fifty year plan. They have enough on their plate the way it is. BTW the committee will be starting on a budget soon for next year with the audit report with the CPAs on the horizon. There is still financing for all of this.How are you spending your late spring and summer vacation?

Golf courses, everybody’s favorite whipping boy. So far we don’t know what AZ Water has to say, the turf experiment at North does not have enough data to see if it viable, and now there is talk to covert to green space so there dogs can crap on them and the property owners around the courses pay for the maintenance. Try that and I will be the first to file class action litigation and I do know class actions.

 

Personally I think the folks have already spent to much time on a 5 year plan. Though my understanding is they are going into great detail. Hope it is not so detailed as to cause one’s brain to spin.
I have not yet heard much about the plan, but would prefer a simple to understand report when complete. And yes I would be happy to serve on the committee or just attend the meetings, but I am one of those sunbirds. I have been to BOD meetings and voiced my opinions, so please don’t suggest I go to the meetings.