Mountain View Preview - March 18 On March 18 the RCSC and TriArc will present a preview of what I think is the conceptual design of the Mountain View renovation taking into account the feedback received at the town hall at Mountain View. The meeting will include a Q&A session right after members get their first viewing of whatever it is TriArc is going to present. The Board has seen a preliminary version of the presentation. Based on what Vice President Nettesheim presented, the theater would continue to be located at Mountain View, the historical home of the Players Club. I am guessing the venue would continue to be a multipurpose venue but do not know if the current auditorium can be cost effectively remodeled. I believe I heard the Board say TriArc is now able to render an opinion on that. The pool area appears to be a major focus as well. The things I did not hear mentioned were tennis, lawn bowling and mini golf. I believe I heard that nothing would proceed until the feedback from the meeting is processed. I am keeping my fingers crossed that the unveiling goes well. There is no perfect solution, and any final design will necessarily involve compromises and cost considerations.
A big concern is the fact that the board of 2024 sent the elements to Triarc based on the SAC meetings. A large majority of the comments made in the SAC meetings were strictly opinions of individuals and personal wants and wishes from small groups. There was little to no fact checking on some of the data and research that was given. The data on club usage was skewed and biased, and the percentage of use was incorrect for many of the clubs. The amount of members in certain clubs should have been disregarded during the SAC meetings. That information was compiled and presented by Chris Herring who was the director of operations at the time. If a professional statistician had been hired to compile the information, it would have been completely different than what was given by Mr. Herring. Shortly after the presentation, Chris Herring was no longer employed by the RCSC Corporation. Numbers were exaggerated for actual patrons viewing the performances of The Players Club. The same person was counted 2 or more times when counting the total number of people in the Lawn Bowling clubs. 1 person could belong to all 5 clubs if they wanted to. This system of accounting made for an unfair view and inaccurate needs of the Lawn Bowling clubs. There should have been 1 list of the members in all 5 clubs with a listing following each members’ name of how many lawn bowling clubs they belong to. The articles submitted and discussed at the SAC meetings on nationwide trends and participation in live theater, Lawn bowling, and Pickelball were not presented or discussed at the board meetings. Members were not given the opportunity to make suggestions at the January or February 2024 board meetings before the elements were given to TriArc. Individual needs of small minorities were given priority when developing the elements to send to Triarc. Anita Borski and Connie Jo Richtmyre were sitting members on the SAC committee, who later ran and were elected onto the RCSC board. They came onto the Board with the same misinformation as the other existing board members If actual facts and data were used in determining the elements needed for the Mt. View project, lawn bowling and the theater would have been eliminated as there is no supporting data to keep those activities. The tennis courts should have remained, with improvements to the area and the addition of 1 more court. 13+ pickelball courts should have been added, with 8 of those courts being climate controlled. If experts in the field of master planning had been used 5 years ago, the project would have been well under way or even completed by now, as the facilities offered would have been in line with what other 55+ communities and city rec centers are offering.
I was pleasantly surprised by the announcement at yesterday's Exchange meeting and i thought the vice president did a great job asking/inviting all involved to promote and hype the event on March 18. Any/all/most of us who have followed the Mountain View mess for all these years understands, it's time to get it done and move on. The reality of a relatively small tract of land it sits on limits what can or should be done. The fact that it is the furthest south center in the community would also suggest it would be best suited for a more neighborhood friendly outcome. The obvious argument has been the Players wanting that to be their home. I suspect the biggest question mark will be the one we have been lusting after; can the existing building be refurbished? We know the 40-50 million dollar/8 year/3 phase project was craziness personified. We know something far more PIF budget friendly needs to play a part of whatever is finally decided and we know kicking the can down the road is utter folly. And, after all of the discussions regarding budgets and the necessary increases, any additional indoor square footage (beyond what is already there) has to be factored into the final decision. I noted in Lori's comments above the suggestion there should be 8 indoor climate controlled pickleball courts. I suspect we will also be hearing from those wanting an indoor climate controlled dog area/space. Both/either will simply mean more costs. Not up to me to decide, but any suggestion for one or both better come with the impact on our annual lot assessment. We've for too long pretended that when we add amenities the cost is covered by PIF. If you think i'm wrong, look at what the cost of adding an 8th rec center did. And now we are told we had to build a stockade wall around it and are locking it up at 4:30 in the afternoon. We have always been short on long-sight and long on short-sight. All of which is interesting because now, i'm using hind-sight.
"We have always been short on long-sight and long on short-sight. All of which is interesting because now, i'm using hind-sight." Wow! Bill, I think this is the best written statement from you that I have ever read!
I'd suggest you put it on a sign and hold it up tonight but we all know how they feel about signs. PS. You know i'm just kidding about the sign...right? PPS. It did make me laugh when i wrote it...sometimes i even amaze myself.
Many will have opinions on what is best for Mountain View. It is inevitable. What we did at the SAC was foundational; It laid a data-based foundation for what was to follow. IMHO, a master planner would seek to fill some holes in the data developed in the SAC by requesting information from RCSC and then make at least the following observations: Financial: What can RCSC afford and still remain affordable? Do we want to maintain our position as most affordable? (short electronic member survey?) What does the reserve study show/mean/indicate? Competitive: How does RCSC stack up against the competition? What is our cost per activity per member vs. their cost per activity per member? How do our utilization rates compare with the competition. Do we have more or less unutilized space? Trends: What is the future of age restricted communities in general? What amenities are developers planning to build into 55+ communities of the future? What is the outlook for our most expensive amenities? IMHO answers to these questions and other research should guide the master planner's recommendation of how RCSC should use its expected and future resources to fulfill its Mission, Vision and Values.
Nice ending Bill. ( no pun intended) I have said it before and will say it again. Round and round we go, where these discussions stop, nobody knows. Projected income vrs projected expenses for next 20 years on two sided piece of paper. Categories for major items. Readable and understandable. Something as simple as possible, so that all members understand. Roadmap to where we are headed. I believe not so difficult to do and should not cost $200,000 to complete. We get off track, confused, and frustrated with conversations going every which way.
