In a few scant hours, the board will meet and vote on all the resolutions. This is standard practice to load up the changes in the final month as board members go off. I was surprised they hadn't moved this meeting to the week before, with Christmas just 3 days away. I see they reduced the punch cards to $2.50 rather than $3 with the plan to only have 8 punches so they stay $20. The 30/60/90 day card goes to $75 per month which means a couple renting for a month pays $150 for that month to use the facilities. I suspect this will be a slam dunk with Christmas around the corner, but i'll post my thoughts following the meeting...stay tuned.
Long story short; all 15 motions passed without hardly a whimper. Pretty good crowd with most speaking out about the increases, but to no avail. Peter Lee, outgoing board member, was the only no vote on the rec fees hike. He also voted against the $40,000 study being done for turf reduction on four more courses. His logic was simple; once we spend that money it will eventually lead to a million or more dollars per course to do the actual work. For my part i spoke to the incoming board members of being more open in how we reach members before decisions are made. After the meeting i asked the general manager this question: How much is too much money to shovel at golf before we have come to grips with the fact the rest of the community has suffered for this failure to look at bigger picture Sun City? I'll spare you the answer, because it's clear boards have simply bought into a decision that was made some 5 years ago for the plan to be all golf, all the time. Sad.
I have been told that the new dock at Lake View ($65,00) cannot be used by paddle boats because it is the wrong height. Who is going to own up to that??????
Assistant General Manager Report Assistant General Manager Report - December 2016 - Sun City, Arizona - The Original Fun City!
Thanks Ida, i had stepped out of the room when the assistant G M's report was read...here's what it said: A new floating dock on Viewpoint Lake has been installed. Since the new dock rides higher on the lake than the old dock, new boat loading platforms and gates will be installed as soon as they are received. The new dock is expected to reopen by the end of December 2016 (weather permitting). Contractor was Floatation Systems and the RCSC Skilled Trades team (cost – $69,095). I guess the question for me is...how the hell does this happen? It's by far not the first f-up by a long shot; don't even get me started on the Bell Lawn Bowling greens and begs the question; when is anyone ever held accountable?
Hmmmm, let me think: Who project managed most of these fiascos. Who received accolades for the job in spite of significant budget overages and ofttimes reduced functionality. Who blames everyone else for the missteps? The AGM? So Bill, it's status quo and unlikely the situation will change unless management changes. Sorry if I'm calling a spade a spade, but in my mind it does no good to pretend otherwise.
No need to apologize IC, the old adage, "i sees them the way i calls them" fits pretty well here. As we've talked before, non-profits usually have a very high threshold for pain (or in this case, mistakes). Perhaps the most frustrating has been to watch the same contractor get bid after bid, only to find out there was a surprise behind that "40 year old wall." Makes you wonder how many other bidders took into consideration it was 40 years old and bid it accordingly. I do not recall a time ever where said contractor was told sorry, your bid is your bid. Of course the one that drives me nuts is when we get bids for a project under the 300K limit for PIF, only to see another 100K tacked on in overages. I'm one of those who clings to the belief anything qualifying for PIF ($300,000 and a 15 year life span) should automatically become a Preservation and Improvement Fund project. It's how you insure we keep costs down on annual rec fees. Word is the AGM is stepping down to a different position soon so it should be interesting to see who steps in. There's a huge responsibility attached to the job. Hopefully the new bid commission (3 board members) will be more diligent as we go forward.
Kudos to the current AGM for managing many concurrent projects -- I know first hand the stress in that. It is a demanding job -- one that requires significant relevant experience -- one that is more than a minister or Zamboni driver or whatever can bring to the table. A new AGM should have years of project management experience in a city government setting.
