Is Sun City Back?

Before i start, the clock read 3:29 am when i climbed out of bed. Nope, not an early riser, i blame this squarely on the back of the 10 cups of coffee i drank at last nights Mountain View Session. I seldom drink coffee that late at night, and surely not that much of it.

And then there's the other stimulant; i walked out of the room sky high with an anticipation that has been missing in a very long time. I stayed till the end, i'm a Sun City governance junkie and danged if i wasn't getting my fix. It was that good.

Let's begin with the how and why's of it:

Is Sun City Back?
It begs the question did it ever leave? Not really leave, i'd rather think of it (it being that sense of community/sense of ownership) being on a very long hiatus. Without going into the history of how and when it happened, suffice to say, we've covered the gamut of exploring various other ideas and ideals in what self-governance meant.

Last night's exercise was a long an arduous process of self-exploration. The opening salvo by triArc was an hour of slides and charts, hard to see the details but easy to listen to the explanations accompanying them. They swapped out presenters, a neat trick to help change the tempo and pace that held the audiences attention (some 200-300, my best guess).

I'm pretty sure there were several of us in the room that had watched the video earlier in the week. It was again a brilliant move to give some of the more ardent observers a chance to see it in advance. Once again, loved the use of taking a number to speak, it worked out well; other than those who struggled to get to the mic. (Note to board, set seats aside for members with numbers to come forward so they are ready to go/10 at a time).

The patience and willingness to openly engage the membership was refreshing and encouraging. Clearly, there was some frustration in the room from those who have watched too many of these types of events with the outcome being zip, nada, nothing.

So, why was last night different?
When the video is posted and you watch it back, pay attention to the comments, especially. The initial speakers were fairly blunt and dare i say critical. This was all going to be just more of the same old, same old. Then of course the comments circled back and the inquisition of how much had been spent on past architects filled the room?

I get it, but the point of last night's efforts wasn't to circle the drain as we gathered to watch the bath water seep from the tub and complain about the ring it left. We've spent too many years whining about fault and not enough time finding solutions and challenging ourself to be better.

40 plus speakers last night, all given ample time for whatever they wanted to say. It was all fair game and there was no effort to shut members up or out. The board handled it well, triArc handled it better. While some on social media suggested it was a "dog and pony show," i watched in stunned amazement as the three hours unfolded in a straight forward fashion and the next steps spelled out.

What was so darned impressive to you, compared to others?
I'm trying to break this into bite-sized bits and this one is too important to not put in it's own category. It was abundantly obvious that triArc's presentation had taken in massive amounts of research. The failures to execute in 2016/2017, 2020, the SAC and even the short span of the 3 week fiasco in Nov of 2024 has been weighed and utilized.

That was impressive. It spoke volumes to their commitment to be better, do better and best of all...not to fail the community yet again. Understanding the past has always provided the best path forward. For whatever reason, some refuse to use it, study it, learn from it. TriArc leaned in to it all.

The mere fact they bundled the presentation into the Mission, Vision and Values statement (thank you John Fast for getting us there) spoke volumes about trying to understand how and why we (as a community) were so successful. Then adding the component we have hyped often, but used little, data, was my tipping point.

We know special interest groups will be ever present and vigilant. We know they want what they want; nope nothing wrong with that, but everything we do, every step we take has to be weighed and measured against what are the costs? The triArc group made it obvious, the decision making process will include answering the question...what is affordable.

Can we afford to be all things to all people at every center?
You guys already know the answer to that question as well as i do. We simply cannot be all things to all people. We can and should be as many things to as many people/groups/clubs as we can afford to be. With rising costs for both our own home budgets and the RCSC's, we have to hold those members we elect to the board to be just as careful with the tens of millions of dollars they will be entrusted to spend on our behalf.

That's why last night was so good, so powerful, so compelling. "Community engagement," is how Sun City was built and why we were so successful. I wasn't a fan of members voting on the "big stuff." I'm still not. I am a huge fan of efforts like last night working to ferret out what we need, balanced with what we can afford.

I've watched too many dog and pony shows, seen too much blowing of the proverbial smoke over the past 15 plus years. I've long been a believer in the old AA books proclamation, "half measures avail us nothing." Last night was anything but a half measure.

Where do we go from here?
They were candid, bluntly so. They told no one no, they told no one yes; they were succinct and clear those stakeholders needed to meet with triArc and objectively state their needs and expectations. That the decisions will be made in partnership with the users, the board and then brought back before the membership.

It was abundantly clear to me those decision makers must create buy-in from the community at large. To do that, it needs to fit into the overall well-being of the community. It needs to be balanced alongside the question of both the cost to build and the ongoing cost to maintain. It has to be communicated in as many ways as possible to reach the broadest number of members.

That won't be an easy task, as we've long lamented inadequate reach and poor communication capabilities from the RCSC. Board members in attendance are working towards expanding how they enhance that reach. It won't be easy, it is doable. Clubs have long been neglected as a resource, it sounds as if some board members understand the enormous potential they have.

Will it work?
Before i answer that, let me just say, i have been accused of being a hopeless and helpless romantic when it comes to all things Sun City. Perhaps my bias, my love for this community renders me unable to be objective.

With that out of the way, last night's session was the first time in a very long time i felt the pulse, the heartbeat the rhythm of the community surging through my veins. I've always believed that Sun City and it's resident members/owners can accomplish anything we put our minds to.

The power of community is real, but to be honest, it has been illusive. I felt it last night and if the board, triArc. the management team and the membership can forge the bonds of a true partnership and make this work, we'll be back on track.

If you get a chance, are even a little bit interested, watch the video when it is posted and you tell me...will it, can it work?

 

Bill, Great observations. John

 

Well, we have been disappointed before. Perhaps the third time will be a charm? Or is it the 4th, 5th, or 6th plan brought forth. I will pray and keep my fingers crossed.

 

Bill, I think it was interesting that mum was the word when you commented on the fact that that same architectural firm just a few short months ago thought the best place for the theater was at LakeView!

Seems that at that time TriARC was simply complying and justifying the desires of the Board. This looks like a much more reasonable approach that hopefully will finally bring Mountain View to fruition.

There's still a very long way to go and I fear that the costs will exceed the PIF's budgeted 14 mil, and then it's back to what stays and what must go!

 

During the SAC committee, we were told we were budgeted 28.3 mil. It was then cut in half when the theater was moving elsewhere. I would expect that if the auditorium stays at MV, that MV gets the whole 28.3 mil again.

 

Thanks for that update.

Still going to be interesting to see what the final cost comes out to be. Seems you don't get much for a million bucks anymore when you consider the cost of a simple maintenance building!

 

It confused me last night when that gentleman spoke about a new theater having retractable seating was a bad idea because of the difficulty some seniors would have navigating them, then went on to say he wanted tiered seating??? Hmmm?

 

IMHO the $28.3M is a not to exceed amount assuming the entire site was scraped. If a quality product can be produced for less, I am all ears!

 

It is an interesting dilemma for triArc and all of us looking at the MV project objectively. No small task as everyone appears to have their pet project and will be unwilling to let go. There will need to be compromises. With building costs skyrocketing, everything needs to be weighed and balanced against the relative value for the community at large.

I read on social media where some were underwhelmed by the presentation, to each their own. What happened the other night was desperately needed. We had to come full circle, back to center and start anew. Plan M should never have been scrapped, but it was.

Looking forward, the session the other night set the stage for realistically moving forward. What that means is anyone's guess. We know there will be those angered and we know there will be those jubilant. We also know the costs will be substantial, there's simply no cheap way out.

We also know it needs to get moving and done so members can believe in the RCSC board member's leadership. I keep getting people tell me it will never happen...i keep telling them it will.

We'll see eh?

 

Mountain View Recreation Center Special Session Follow Up
Video and triARC informational PDF documents:
• VIDEO RCSC Board of Directors Special Session Tuesday, March 18, 2025
• TriARC Visioning Outreach Compiled PDF https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/25-0212-RCSC-Summation-Compiled.pdf
• triARC Visioning Summation Synopsis PDF https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/up...n-Presentation-Compiled-_-triARC-and-LAST.pdf #

SOURCE: RCSC e-blast Thursday, March 20, 2025 https://mailchi.mp/e98628fe8659/exchange-video-link-7787675?e=f18f779945

 

I encourage the Board to video tape each stakeholder session and post it. While it will never happen, each stakeholder group should come prepared with the data supporting their want, the amount they expect to be spent on their hobby and the benefit it brings to the community.

 

It won't happen, and for valid reasons with many/most being unwilling or intimidated being on camera and recorded for all to see. That said, the questions you posed should be spelled out in advance and those appearing be expected to answer them clearly and concisely. Those unable to do so should recognize their wants aren't solid enough to warrant their wants (it won;t but sounds good eh?).

Interesting, yesterday in a discussion with a member they suggested the board president should have shut out/off the dog clubs remarks. The best friend's dog club had a large group there and were fairly vocal in what they were looking for. As i responded, i said i thought Tom handled it fine. The club used the MV auditorium last summer and i think they are slated to be there this one as well.

After that, i don't see that site being an option. Obviously it depends on what decisions are made for the PAC, but what we know is air conditioned covered spaces are subject to County code parking limitations. A 10,000-12,000 sq ft PAC along with a 4000-6000 sq ft fitness/pool dressing rooms will take up the majority of parking spaces. There are also parking requirements (though much less stringent) regarding outside/non enclosed areas.

With the expanded pool/spa, the mini-golf, tennis courts (if they remain), increased pickleball courts, horseshoe/corn-hole and lawn bowling (if it stays) the parking allocations are real, along with the water retention ponds. Back when DEVCO built everything those codes were far less impactful, if at all.

Back to the dog club; we've been told they want 10,000 sq feet of air conditioned room and the other night we heard the floor in the auditorium (yes i listen) wasn't adequate. We already know the Players want tiered seating so that would immediately rule out the dog club from use once built. Even if the board was willing to use retractable seating, i find it hard to believe they would let the new building built for the performing arts go to the dogs.

That leaves us with a club looking for a new 10,000 square foot space and the related costs that goes with it. Plus we've heard them say it's just for those hot summer months; or is it? And they told us it wouldn't become an indoor dog park, but used for training purposes. As a life long dog owner, it holds no attraction to me. I know from listening to the comments the other night, club members are passionate about the advantages of having their own facility.

Really the questions become: Can we afford it? Does it affect the greater good of the community? And finally, just like the promotion of indoor pickleball courts, do other age restricted communities have such amenities (indoor dog arena and indoor pickleball courts)? If not, why not?

 

Bill,
Yes, we now heard from the dog club.
Because of our limited funds and having to prioritize the overall needs of a large community, the dog stadium should in my opinion be funded by those who want a dog training and games facility, by them and not the overall community.

 

I couldn’t agree more! The very idea of this type of expenditure being foisted on the RCSC and the members as a permanent cost is lunacy. I realize this is a PIF expenditure, but the continued costs of maintaining it will fall on the RCSC members.

 

It’s basically a social club for the dog club members. They sit around and schmooze while River or Fluffy learns to jump over sticks and run through plastic tubes. Then there are the inevitable parties, Christmas, New Year’s, something in the spring, something in the fall, Thanksgiving, etc. They may deny this to get what they want, but it is true. Then there are the requests later for all sorts of goodies, such as a large Stop Watch for timing the doggies as they run through a course.
This happens all the time with clubs.

 

My example is the sport of Lawn Bowling and its impact to Sun City. The sport is growing, but had an ardent supporter in Helen Teichman. The difference was, not only did she have a clear vision of what she wanted the greens to be, she brought in outside experts to help direct the direction to be taken, and she wrote large donations to help fund her ideas. There were distinct requests made for the lawn bowling club, but difference is she backed her club desires with cash to help fund requested services. My point being, if you are wanting to expend great sums of money to create a costly venture, then start helping with the funding of such a project. I still don’t feel an expensive indoor dog facility is a viable investment for the members of the RCSC. The costs are very high, and the impact will be borne by the membership forever. And this venue would not be available to every dog owner in Sun City. This venue would be open to club members only, which further reduces its utilization as a community amenity.

 

I recall the dog training group wanted a place where there equipment would not need to be moved because it was heavy and cumbersome to do so. Therefore, it seems to me that the space wouldn't be adaptable for other groups. At least not during the summer months. I was impressed with the number of people who used the dog training facility at MV last summer but $1.5M for a new facility doesn't seem a reality to me. We can't even keep the waterfall at Lakeview running!

 

She did donate upwards of a million dollars for all things lawn bowling, and now she is gone. No question her generosity fueled the sports efforts for some 20 years. The RCSC benefited greatly, as did the lawn bowlers. The challenge with that kind of support is most often felt when it ends.

Which is exactly why data matters. The emotionally charged "we can't lose anything" or even worse the ego driven "we have to have what we want" has been holding us back from making sound decisions. One only has to look at the Grand Center and who got what they wanted. Not arguing anything other than was there a better option than buying that piece of property? We'll never know because the GM had no interest in exploring it when the Lakes Club was available.

It is the perfect example of allowing "community engagement." I would sleep way better at night if i new the members were the ones who decided against it, not the general manager. The voices wanting what they want, or what they don't want to lose will be ever present. They must be allowed to voice their opinions, and then weighed against the questions; is it a good fit and more importantly, can we afford it? Those are never easy answers, but they are exactly the kind of difficulties every board member faces.

The irony of it all is most often the long range plans come to fruition well after the board members who made them are long gone from the board. I've argued that is one of the reasons long range planning has been so shortsighted from a board perspective. It's also why committees should have a bigger stake in the process, they often stay on committees longer than board members in office.

I'm torn on Carole's point; how much should clubs contribute to adding new amenities or supporting existing ones? The PIF was supposed to solve that question/problem, but with each passing year we see the reality of exploding costs and clubs wanting more.

 

When SC was younger, we provided the space-building, for many of these clubs to become clubs. The problem I see now is you have trends forming ( like dog club) that want to start a club based on the entire community to fund a special complex for them to have the club. This will continue until our BOD takes the courage to define what a club can or cannot be. We cannot possibly build a complex for a said group to use for the purpose of dog olympic games. No senior community anyplace has offered something like this to one particular club.

 

“I'm torn on Carole's point; how much should clubs contribute to adding new amenities or supporting existing ones?”
Not going to get caught up in the semantics of word definitions, but take the “should” and make it “could”.
The BFDC has been a regular recipient of monies from the RCSC for a number of years. Starting with the dedicated space at Fairway. The space sits empty most of the time, but still requires the expense of maintaining the space at a cost to the membership. Then it was they needed grass, so at additional expense, grass was added. Then they were upset because the grass was dry and dying, so, more expense, sprinklers were installed. Still more money. With the addition of the grass and sprinklers, the cost of maintenance went up as well, as it now requires special mowing protocol. Then the cost of putting up a large shade to cover the outdoor area was the latest. Need I say, additional expense for the membership? Not only is there a real cost to purchase all of the above, but now the price to maintain this area is passed on to us, the membership. And then questions arise about why the yearly assessment goes up?
Could the additional costs be expected to be covered by the club creating the extra expenses? I think it should.
When I think about the amount of dedicated space already allotted to the BFDC and ponder the cost to maintain it, and in my opinion, this club requires a greater share of the budget to sustain the current facilities they have. Now, they want more again? More additional cost to the membership? As stated, the mentality of “I want what I want and I want it now” is out of control and I, for one, don’t want to pay for this in my yearly assessment for the rest of my life. Why not expect a club to be responsible for a share of the cost? Perhaps we “should” expect recompense from a club when the requests for repeated upgrades are endless. In my opinion.