It's clear we are getting more visitors/readers to this site. I suspect some are coming without knowing much about some of the things we post here. That poses a problem, especially given my past life where "spin-doctoring" was almost a given when writing for the masses. I've become quite outspoken on the huge cost of golf course renovations and that isn't giving readers a fair understanding of what and why the RCSC is doing it. So, in an effort to present both sides of the story, let me try and fill in the blanks for those who don't know. Viewpoint lake is manmade and in the early 2000's they discovered it was leaking pretty bad. The board tried a remedy that came with no guarantee, but was a tenth of the cost of draining the lake and putting down a new liner. Unfortunately it didn't work and the seepage continued. The state was on our case about it and the home owners on the lake up in arms. The interesting aspect is the RSCS only owns a portion of the frontage (no idea of how much but I would guess approximately 25%). The rest is by home owners, the Sun Health Foundation and El Dorado condo's. The reality is the amenity is primarily the responsibility of the RCSC. As the RCSC looked at potential cost to drain and fix the lake, it was coming in around 10 million dollars (or more). Worse yet, the work to get it done was a minimum of 1 year and the stench from it would have been horrendous. As all of this was going on, Jan Ek, general manager, began working with the state. To try and simplify; our argument was the leakage was going back into the aquifer and we were essentially recycling the water through our wells which in turn was fed back into the lake as we watered our courses. They agreed and set an 18 month interim agreement in place. It was the best of all outcomes, with one caveat; we submitted a plan to make our course water management system more effective. Now that's not a bad thing because water distribution on several of our courses was horrible. And the potential for a longer agreement was incumbent on us following the plan we submitted. At approximately the same time, the RCSC began talking with Gary Brawley, a golf course designer of some note. The first course with a complete overhaul was to be Riverview; some of the greens on there were akin to playing mini-golf. The people who played the course got excited and involved with the redesign. With plans nearly to commence, Sun City's oldest course, North, was going through some problems. Water line breakage was almost a never-ending problem. Rather than putting bad aids on the breaks, we moved it up to be remodeled before Riverview. I struggled with the 5 to 6 million dollar investment, but was easily outvoted. The argument was that as long as the course was shut down, why not do the whole thing rather than just the irrigation. When I wrote this years Best of 1014/2015 we did a piece on golf (both North and Riverview). Rather than me blathering on, we reprinted those who played it tell us what they thought...they loved it. The one thing I did write was that golf had held it's own in 2014 and that was with a course closed. That was great news for Sun City. Now with Riverview down till November of this year and an extensive remodel of the course and outside space for the clubhouse, once again avid golfers are excited about it reopening. I suspect it will be a repeat of the North course, but even better. In part, the agreement with the state was to better distribute the water. We have been buying state of the art watering systems, which is a good thing. The cost to put down new irrigation (we did it at Lakes West) was in the neighborhood of 2 million dollars. Where I struggle is when that 2 million dollar price tag balloons to 6 million. In the case of North (our oldest) and Riverview (our oddest) perhaps they were good decisions. I'll tell you in 10 years based on where golf play is at. The bigger issue for me is Willowbrook/Willowcreek. Both of those are newer and nicer (yes I used to play a lot). We've already reinvested in the streams and 5 years back we stuck a fair amount of money into redesign at Willowbrook. I guess it begs the question, how much more do those 2 courses really need? Lest I forget, golfers there are clamoring for better outside space to hang out in (a decision I have supported in the past). In any event, seeing as no one from the RCSC came on and made the point, it seemed only right that I took the initiative to try and give you the rest of the story. If I have missed anything, please fell free to tack it on.
This thread isn't get much action; I guess fairness is over-rated. Let me add two more items and then rebut one of them. Here's some stats on monies spent and budgeted from the PIF from 1999 (inception) through 2020 and the percentage it represents: * Golf courses and wells- $31.6 million dollars. 42.59%. * Rec Centers/Sun Bowl- $42.4 million dollars. 57.17%. These figures are from the 2014 annual membership meeting so in all likelihood do not include the 2 plus million dollar adjustment for the Creeks renovations added last month. Obviously that changes both percentages. Perhaps more importantly is the logic used in supporting the dismantling of the long range planning committee: "the long range planning committee is not the answer, it has proven to bring input from anyone except the 10-12 people on the committee who have some personal agenda." While there is no question in that statement, look at it this way: Several years back, no one was running for the board. There was almost always the same number of candidates as spots. For whatever reasons, the board became unbalanced with the majority being golfers. It was during that time period where apparently decisions were made to spend the 30 plus million dollars on golf course renovations. Did they have an agenda? The value of a LRPC is in the fact they can help balance out any "agenda's" that are lopsided. Whatever interests a committee member may bring is yet another opinion in the course of direction for the community to go. That makes perfect sense to me, and certainly more than a board of 9 members who may suddenly be trapped in the theory of group think.
Curious about Viewpoint lake leaking. Is water regularly pumped into it then to offset the leak? Is it ever cleaned or filtered?
Thanks Bill P. for the review of past expenditures from PIF funds, as it helps one better grasp the whole picture. Hopefully there a historical primer of past board decisions for new board members to review as part of their orientation. Yes? I kind of chuckled when I read the commentary regarding disbanding the Long Range Planning Committee because of lack of community input and the personal agendas of its members, and then contrasting that to the expenditures on golf course renovation by a board with an over representation from the golfing community. That's the bad news. The good news is there is the potential for learning from the past. It looks like the passage of the increase in PIF funds will become a reality later this month, and hopefully all of us who frequent this board will live long enough to see what decisions future boards and management make in spending the revenue gained. Let me cite two examples that at least give me some hope that the pulse of the community will be taken and that there is at least a chance the results may influence future decisions and obviate future contention regarding serving personal agendas: 1. RCSC asked all of us to respond to a membership survey recently with a reported 2,000 + responses. The information acquired had the stated purpose of being used to help guide future decisions of the board, and 2. The public forum on the dog park held at Bell Recreation Center. That in effect was kind of an informal public hearing to both settle some disputes but also for long range planning input to guide future capital expenditures. I attended that hearing even though I don't have a dog in the hunt (figuratively) or in the park. (literally) As a non-owner of a dog, I have watched with both interest and admiration of how that process worked, and it is translating into some dog park renovations that have a great chance of being successful. Could the board, management, community not learn from the aforementioned and replicate, refine, and/or expand the effort to "test the waters" of public opinion to guide decisions over the next twenty years with that pot of PIF money?
Historical primer? Nope. For the most part, people elected to the board are folks who have some experience in or with various aspects of the community. Once elected they get a crash course on the responsibilities of being a board member. I was an oddity in that I had served on several organization's boards, been an officer in clubs, written volumes on the community and had run a non-profit for years. I've long argued the RCSC board should mandate the reading of Jubilee, the 25th Anniversary book and at least the first 30 pages of John Meeker's "A Look Back" (which is online at the museum site). Understanding our history is to better understand our future. As far as the lake, we have numerous fountains that act as a filtering system. Back around 2010 there was lots of angst from owners on the lake about the level. The water loss was significant and the RCSC would have had to buy additional water to replenish it. That's why the settlement reached with the state was so critical. Now the lake levels are good and the cost isn't a burden on home owners in Sun City. Got some things to do this morning but when I return I want to touch on a LRPC and some things people have said.
Question, Mr. Pearson: The "cheap fix" attempted by the RCSC was not a success and the seepage continues. The lake levels are back up! Those two statements seem contradictory. What's missing?
Sorry, in an effort to give the Reader's Digest version I tend to condense (I know, it doesn't seem like it). The mid 2000 fix was some type of chemical sealant and didn't work. The levels are back up now because of the agreement from a couple of years back with the state and water is flowing into the lake without exorbitant charges to the RCSC. Hope that helps.
Above I posted the percentage's for golf courses versus rec centers from the PIF budget. Today in a discussion with a former board member the claim was made the $750,000 allocation for golf course maintenance buildings in each of the years was actually billed back to the centers. I said I didn't think that was the case. Anyone out there on the board or from the staff want to clear that up? Obviously it makes a quite difference.
