Are You a RCSC Member First?

Anyone running for election for the RCSC Board of Directors should be cognizant of the amount of time and energy it takes to serve on the Board. They should be committed to listening to the Members, various clubs and groups, work in sync with Management and staff, be fiscally responsible, and make decisions based on what is best for the OVERALL MEMBERS OF RCSC, NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS! Good luck to the candidates that can best fit this description!

 

I am first and foremost a RCSC member.

That is why I believe in Plan M for MV project with one or two changes. To include:

a) remodel building at MV for PAC
b) enclose 8 pb courts, leave 7 outdoors with shade
c) outdoor spa
d) refurbish pool area
e) mini-golf update
f) lobby and staff area
g) 1 story 4000 sq ft fitness and locker rooms
h) lawn bowling stays if space is not needed for parking and/or pb. If space is needed move lawn bowling to new location.

As Marlene, the architect has stated, all of this is subject to modification as more study and design is completed.

 

Tom, Do you have a cost estimate for the Plan that you support?

 

25-28 million extremely rough estimate— based on numbers we received today at the townhall. I am also of the opinion based on the architect discussions with the SAC that any estimate is open to modification in Plan M. Do I hear “compromise.”
Tough word with this project, though I believe progress is being made, however slowly.

 

No...if the space is needed simply eliminate the court. Surely the 6 remaining courts is sufficient for the less than 360 Club members!

 

Certainly is an option FYI. Could you live with the rest of the plan as a starting point?

 

What I find troublesome - a group of players (golfers) with a vested interest, also known as a conflict of interest, have been allowed to make recommendations about setting fees directly to the Board of Directors.

Golf is the second highest income generator for RCSC. Golf is THE most expensive sport to maintain. Yet, golfers continue to believe they "made money" year after year. Only because the golf committee hit their target revenue. Nothing more. When Acting GM McCurdy finally showed them the facts, there was a bit of change in their understanding of how each cost center works. Quite a surprise to learn expenses were being charged against golf revenue.

Prior to this spring B&F met 3-4 times per year; management prepared the budget, committee had one meeting to review, discuss and give its blessing. The budget is in the millions - this year over $26M. When I started really paying attention, I found that not just crazy, but irresponsible.

Howver, its a new day. The Budget and Finance Committee is finally engaged in the process and is now involved in reviewing all cost centers consistently. The committee's responsibility is to monitor income and expense across all RCSC operations and work with management to provide solid information to assist the Board in making sound budget decisions. Golf Advisory should also be communicating with B&F. The same for Bowling. The former process was not like anything I had ever experienced in NP management, NP Board experience or public administration. We can thank John Fast, Karen McAdam and Kevin McCurdy, for helping set the new direction, and the dedication of the committee over the summer to get us on new path.

We aren't there yet. We need more transparency with document sharing and improved communication, but I'm optimistic with the fall/winter schedule, work with LRP and continued hard work of management staff, great strides can be made.

I have ideas about the players/theater that I'll write on a separate thread.

 

I was hoping to ask about the specifics of a 5 year plan at the townhall today, but ran out of time. Linda do you know if such a plan exists? Would love to see the plan if it does exist.

 

There were ideas presented looking out several years when the Finance Committee was working this summer to try to determine how RCSC could find solutions to fix/fund the deferred maintenance, fund current and future capital and keep up with increased maintenence and repairs. Plus, all of general ops. This current "mess" is why the proposal is for a five year rolling plan. My understanding is that the ideas we used will be the jumping off point for our workplan, which is a priority, from management and B&F, plus LRP. RCSC can't continue to just budget annually. It's like throwing darts. Organizationally, RCSC also needs a plan, which is also a plus for future Boards, knowing there is a road map and a financial plan.

I don't know if this helps. It's definitely a work in progress.

 

okay, thanks. I was under the impression one was complete and was used to set the proposed fee increases.

 

Like Tom T, I was under the impression that a five year plan had been developed and was ready to be completed.

 

I haven't got a dog in this fight. I don't play pickleball and have never attended the theater.

My concern is strictly about the future sustainability of Sun City. I just have a hard time with rebuilding a Rec Center with many of the same amenities as a Rec Center less than a mile away.

 

Tom M, Your concern is valid. I guess I would ask if Fairway can absorb the activities and attendance from MV. What would you propose to do with MV?

 

I believe once they shut down MV we will find out because I suspect that is where the people who currently use MV will go?

As far as MV goes, I would attempt to keep the update to a moderation and forget about the "WOW" factor that some want.

 

Understood on the amenities. I also do not have a dog in the fight. I basically workout in fitness areas of the rec centers. The amount of money some SAC members want to spend on a fitness center boggles my brain.(not a good thing) I see no need to spend 7.5 million on fitness and locker rooms at MV.

 

I too like Marlene's efforts, but we tend to get a little loose with the data/calculations regarding costs; especially when they aren't coming from the architect.
Let me try and make some sense of the above proposal, neither judging its merits or faults.
a). We know Marlene's projected costs were around 12 or 13 million dollars without knowing if the building was able to be converted. 7 outdoor courts are cheap, unless we need to cover them with an intent to enclose at some point.
b). Enclose 8 pickleball courts: There's been an internal debate between authors of this proposal on square footage required. We know Marinette is 30,000 sq and we know there is ample space. We know Paul Higgin's projected 21,000 sq but others claimed that wasn't adequate. I have used 25,000 sq as a reasonable compromise. That number results in 12.5 million dollars ($500 a square times 25,000). Some have projected $600 sq is closer, but let assume this building could literally be a metal shed with good sound proofing.
c) and d). Done and done in all plans submitted (agreement is a beautiful thing).
e). Mini-golf. See c) and d) above.
f). Lobby and staff areas. I'm really flexible here. Personally i would turn the theater around and have entry to it via the monitor that also admitted pool and fitness users.
g). 1 story fitness, 4000 sq for fitness and lockers. Too small, but way closer in size than proposed in the other plans. The 15,000 proposed two story is overkill and the 7.5 million dollars along with another 75 parking spaces makes it even more challenging. 7000 sq, 1 level and room for yoga, stretching and similar type of activities would be a nice addition.
h). Lawn bowling could move to Fairway with the RCSC replacing the carpet they had budgeted for in 2019/2020.
g). I know it wasn't on the list, but i would resurface the tennis courts at Lakeview so tennis had two venues with a clear understanding when the Lakeview remodel happens everything is on the table (based on data/utilization) on what stays and what goes. That gives clubs the incentive to increase their numbers or risk losing the space.

The problem with the above scenario is two-fold, costs and parking. The 25,000 sq pickleball building needs 125 parking space...AT LEAST UNTIL SOMEONE GETS A DEFINITIVE ANSWER WHETHER A WAIVER IS POSSIBLE FROM MARICOPA COUNTY REGARDING THE PARKING CODES. SOMEBODY PLEASE DO THAT...BECAUSE IF IT IS POSSIBLE, THEN ALL WE NEED DO IS ENCLOSE MARINETTE FOR A FRACTION OF THE COST AND QUIT THE BICKERING OVER MOUNTAIN VIEW.

 

The first question that should have been addressed during a sit down with Maricopa County after Marlene presented her plan with the "option" to enclose the covered PB courts - IS A PARKING WAIVER POSSIBLE? If not, why not? Then, check to see if there had ever been a waiver that established precedence that we could argue? Otherwise, this is just crazy for everybody to keep speculating that a waiver is going to happen. Members are building expectations on maybe, probably, we hope so. I think it's a pipe dream and a waste of time. My opinion.

 

Mountain View currently has 255 parking places. This will allow up to 51,000 sqft of buildings.
The auditorium, lawnbowl building, mini-golf building, and pool restrooms are 12,840 sqft. Add a 25,000 sqft pickleball, a 3000 sqft lobby/staff building and a 10,000 sqft fitness area and You are at 50,840. No parking problem.

 

This parking is a lot like not being told till October that the budget for MV project is $27 million. Made planning awkward and difficult. One always should know the ground rules at the beginning of planning.

 

We have no idea how much more square footage Marlene's plan will increase the auditorium by, but for discussion purposes with the bump outs, let's say it goes to 15.000? The pball building at 25k, the fitness at 10k (that's closer to where you need be), the lobby at 3000 and the assorted out buildings we are at least in the parking ball park (250 spots). The bigger problem is from the financial end Paul: 12.5 m pball. 12-13 m reno for theater. Lobby and fitness (14,000 sq at $500) is another 7 m. Pool and spa is another 2 m (no second pool). The walls around the center i think are needed and honestly i would look at 8 ft block for both security and sound dampening i would guess would be something under a million dollars and then whatever on the mini-golf reno (100K?). We're now back in the 35 million dollar plus range.

The question is simple, can we/should we spend 35 million dollars on a 6.5 acre site?