You have to love Yogi Bera! I have been trying to follow all the twists and turns associated with the MountainView project and I still don't know which way is up or who is on first base. To be fair, VPN has laid out a high-level process being followed so I know stakeholders and the board are meeting with TriArc to develop a final (?) conceptual design of something that includes some things and can be built for less than $28M. My hope is whatever the something turns out to be is fully supported by the data as the best use of the funds and the Board discusses the tradeoffs and alternatives considered.
One of the twists and turns we have lost sight of John is how much more expensive everything we do is. Building costs will be impacted perhaps more than any other agenda item we have in front of us. Any plans coming out over the next year will be as much as 10% higher by the time they get around to actually doing the work. The days of cheap are gone, long gone. Those living in Sun City and hoping they could get by with minimal increases on lot assessments are in for a rude awakening. The scary part of the proposition and what i have seen very little in the way of discussion is what is happening with our golf courses? Rumors were swirling the RCSC would be moving the South course to the head of the turf reduction schedule. Now there's rumblings some want the North course first. We know the South course has a far larger footprint and those potential conversion costs could be racing towards the 20 million dollar mark. Throw in the 6 million dollar (is that still the number?) Quail Run rebuild and one quickly sees that huge PIF nest-egg all but gone; when adding in the Mountain View renovation. Every decision needs to be made with the best of care. Understanding just how fragile our economic structure is should be the impetus for the board to use the available data to make the best decisions possible. We no longer have the ability to just give every stakeholder what they want; simply because they want it. Those days too are long gone. When we see a 300k per year (20%) insurance hike, we know the days of cheap are gone. If there is an upside, life outside our white walls is not any better, and in many cases, much worse. All of which is even more reason to lean into the membership rather than the board feeling like they need to have every answer. Boards create buy-in from the membership when they feel they have ownership in the process; something they haven't done a very good job in of late. We'll see if they embrace that mindset because by years end, lots of the pending questions should have answers.
Golf should lose its high priority at this time. The money being considered for golf spending ought to be scaled back. (IMHO)
Personally i hope all the golf stuff is put on hold till we get the new golf manager hired and in place. We desperately need a set of fresh eyes and ideas to refocus the future of golf in the community. We've been trapped in an antiquated and small-minded approach where the minority pool of golfers dictated the terms and conditions of play to the majority (of golfers).
Tom, The reason golf is in the forefront is because of water usage plain and simple. Arizona is in the middle of what I believe is a 35 year drought and counting. Quail run project is not only to rehab a course but also to reduce water use via turf and a new irrigation system that does not resemble the Bellagio fountains in Vegas. The South course has an inordinate amount of turf presently and must be reduced. This course I believe has the largest water consumption of any course in Sun City. Ten years ago turf reduction was discussed by the Board and the installation of desert landscaping. The plan was to reduce turf by shrinking the rough by 25 feet on each side. For the record I live on the South course and served on the Board during this discussion. I thought the 25 was too little and suggested 50-100 feet on each side. There still would be rough and large desert landscaping which uses little water and is low maintenance. Now planning for this is a touch dodgy as the State never advises in advance the RCSC allotment of acre feet of water for the year to be used on the courses. This is why drought resistant turf is being tested on some courses as looks like part of the answer. You May see this as “money down a rathole” but it is not. This is a delicate dance to maintain the course, please the State on water use and use a a map for converting the courses we have. (IMHO)
Thank you, Dave. Those pesky ADWR requirements! Did I hear correctly that there will be a 10k fine PER DAY if we exceed our water allotment?
That's a big part of the problem E, they haven't said anything. No one knows what they will do and one of the reasons for some of the rancor on the long range planning committee. Apparently the RCSC worked out an agreement when the question looms, what will many of the private courses do that don't have the deep pockets for turf reduction? And sorry Dave, it's not a throwaway or a given when the south course conversion to desert landscaping is 18-20 million dollars. It begs the question what would happen if they turned the water off on all of the rough and just watered fairways, tee boxes and greens (which is apparently the goal). The rough would die, turn to dirt and frankly be more playable than the rock. The downside of course is it would look like crap and all the home owners abutting the course would be unhappy (including you?). There need at least be an honest conversation if that 20 million dollar investment makes sense over the next 50 years. As always, that's just one man's opinion.
Ok, I thought I heard 10k. The problem with letting it go is blowing dust and dirt equals coccidioidomycosis aka Valley Fever, which is on the rise. Trust me, you don't want Valley Fever.
I get it,....but I don't get it! Have you driven down the 101 lately by the stadium and seen all the new rooftops, not to mention the new VAI Resort with a six-acre pool? And it's not just there, multiple developments are being constructed and popping-up all over, and each one of those rooftops have bathrooms, laundry rooms, and kitchens! They all use water! I know, they say that even though the population since 1957, of about 1 million, has grown to over 7 million, we are using less water now then we were back then due to new regulations and the disappearance of the need to irrigate farmland! Which are now all business' and housing developments???? I also understand that, supposedly, a builder/developer must prove there will be 100 years of water available before they will be issued a permit to build! But I wonder how is that managed? Can a builder/developer in one county get a permit from that county, then a second builder/developer in the next county also get a permit from his/her county even though both are probably tapping into the same water source? I suppose I'll be long dead before we hit a crisis point, but it just irritates me that the politicians seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths, which isn't unusual! I suppose there's more to it than just water. Probably has more to do with getting all those new tax dollars? Might be a few dollars going to kick-backs as well? You think???? Bottom Line: The RCSC has to play the same game as everybody else, but I'm not so sure we know how this game ends! New politicians, new rules! We need to stay on the safe side or else we will be shutting down golf courses and tuning them into green space, which might not be a bad thing after all? Just my opinion!
FYI, you are correct it's crooked. Not all builders need the 100 year if they are building to rent. I know, crazy. And I don't buy the bull that we're using less water. There's a lot we're not being told. Money, money, money, money....
I am very unhappy with what has been done all over, but especially in the West Valley. You don't even want to get me started.
Back to the Mountain View rebuild and deja vu. I remember in July of 2012 when we did our own personal tour of Sun City, we started at the South end with Mountain View. As I had researched and followed Sun City online before the visit, I remember telling my husband, "Don't worry they're completely redoing this center very soon." Fast forward nearly 13 years and you see where we're at. I will probably not follow what's going on with Triarc as closely as I had followed the story in year's past. I don't have that kind of time left on the planet. All I want is that they stay on budget. (I can hear Bill laughing as I type this.) There's no way everyone is going to be happy with what they decide and those that don't get what they want will just have to accept it like adults.
Hey guys great points. At the candidate forum when asked what the number one issue Sun City faced is I simply said water. Back to MV. I get it that the Board is "walking on egg-shells" in its communications trying to avoid being "carpet bombed with comments" by groups that want the biggest slice of the MountainView pie. Hopefully, they will get some breathing room to perform data-based analysis taking into account all the facilities and amenities RCSC owns and operates. IMHO the focus of the MountainView project should be on how whatever ends up being built fits into the recreational complex owned and operated by RCSC. Decisions made on Mountainview should IMHO consider what already exists at Fairway, Lakeview, Sun Dial, Marionette, Bell, Oakmont and Grand and how it is utilized. These decisions should also properly consider trends in newer 55+ communities and balance the wants of the most vocal groups against the benefits to the entire membership in a logical cost benefit analysis. The Board reiterated its request for members interested in inputting into the decision to write the board. I will do so and fully expect to be ignored as a troublemaker. That is what happened in round one of the MV renovation which ended with me on the Board and a moratorium on pursuing option two. I hope this is not deja vu all over again.
