eyesopen, DEVCO built 26,793 residences from 1960-1978. When you add the 140 Hovnanian residences the actual number of households is 26,569, not the 22,793 that you are using. You can proof our numbers by looking at the 2023 RCSC Assessment Budget of $13,639,238. Using your number each household would be paying roughly $598 this year, not the $525 that began in February. Using the actual 26,569 households x $525 the total expected Assessments would be $13,948,725 where most of the variance with the RCSC Budget would be the Assessments that were due in January at the previous lower amount. Using your percentages of single family/multi-person family households of 51.81%/48.19% would equate to population of 13,765 single family households and 25,608 multi-person households for a total population of 39,373. Using the population of 39,373 and the total annual Assessment of $13.9M the new Assessment would be approximately $355 per person, not that far off from the current $262.50 per person that dual person households currently pay. Single person households would be saving $170 THE FIRST YEAR. I highlight this because of your statement “The new revenue will help us avoid frequent increases to the annual assessment, too!” which in my opinion is not correct. Those of us who were here in the good old days of per person Assessments may forget our friends and neighbors found ways to “cheat the system”. Let’s face, it we live in an aging community and the older people get, the less likely they are to use our facilities. At the first sign of aging or illness all those two person households have an incentive to drop someone off the deed and thereby save $355 per year. Guess what, the rest of us must pay more the following year just because there are fewer people paying. For this reason, I do not agree with your statement about more stable annual assessments. One of the benefits of per residence assessments is that increases are based solely on market conditions, not on the number of people looking for and using a loophole. How does this look for future years? If 5000 people are dropped from deeds the new assessment, just based on fewer payers would be $405 and if 10,000 dropped the new assessment would be $475, oh so close to where we started out billing $525 per household. Don’t believe me that people will cheat? Look at all the recent discussions on social media, many people state they do not use the facilities now. Add in the aging population and you must ask yourself, what would be the incentive to keep paying the extra $355 per year when people are reaching their advanced golden years or having health problems? There is also an actual cost to the RCSC. More deed changes prompt more billing changes that require more human resources and of course more expense which is passed along to residents. Plus, you hear a lot of unhappy people when a new PIF is required. Going forward this would be an even more common occurrence and will need to be monitored and enforced by the RCSC even more closely as the assessment income will be more unpredictable. Other concerns. Today the process for visitors is far easier than it used to be. Partially because with a per residence assessment more people are carrying rec cards. Back in the per person assessment days there had to be far more scrutiny of visitors because the Minnesota or Kansas driver’s license were used by an actual spouse or partner that had been dropped off the deed to save money. Have family or friends visiting, get punch cards for everyone! Remember the overall assessments were far smaller than they are today so there is even more financial incentive to deed drop and file a beneficiary deed with the county. Did anyone ever notice the county filing machine at the library? Back in the good old days it was used on an almost daily basis. Also, and maybe most important, we can’t forget that it’s just not single person households that are living in Sun City on limited means. Will two family households be able to pay the increased annual Assessment? Do local community organizations and foundations have extra funds or even be willing to assist in paying the increased amount? So, while my figures are estimated at best, I tried to explain the rest of the story so that stakeholders can make informed decisions going forward. While I am not personally 100% against per person Assessments, I do believe that people should be careful what they ask/lobby/vote for as the outcome WILL be different than just a temporary savings for a group of residents.
May we agree there are currently thousands of dual deeded “lots” that with payment of the $525 annual assessment may choose to receive the benefit of two RCSC full access memberships? The dual deeded get one “paid,” the other free, or if you prefer, two at half price. The value of two memberships is currently $1050. Choosing not to data dance with you. It is subject to analysis and interpretation influenced by perception. You write, “While I am not personally 100% against per person Assessments, I do believe that people should be careful what they ask/lobby/vote for as the outcome WILL be different than just a temporary savings for a group of residents.” What is this temporary savings and for whom? There is no debate about paying whatever the annual assessment is per lot. Benefit offered should be the same per lot. When RCSC stops giving away memberships, more funds are available to manage, maintain and staff our facilities and amenities. I know everyone must be as weary as I am with this discussion. I leave quoting a master wordsmith and Sun City historian, “On the other hand, there are countless numbers of instances where the board (via the GM) made changes to the bylaws that stuck it square up the members backside. Starting with the bad choice to make single owners (except those of you who were grandfathered) to subsidize couples.“ ~Bill Peterson, Sun City Advocate blog comment
In this case eyesopen it wasn't the general manager who made the change, that happened in 2003, 3 years before she was hired. Not sure who on the board was the driving force or even who the GM was back then. I had just moved into the community when it happened.
eyesopen, Of course you don’t want to “data dance” on your household numbers as they were not based on facts. Every reputable Realtor in Sun City has a spreadsheet “Address to Model” of the number of homes in our community so I might suggest you contact one of them to base future posts on facts. And no, I do not agree with your statement that the current value of an RCSC rec card is $1050. The current value of an RCSC rec card is 262.50 per person per year. A dual deeded household pays that amount per person which establishes the value per person. A singled deeded household pays the full $525 and loses $262.50 in value based on their personal decision to have one person on the deed. The temporary savings I referred to would be if we choose to move to a per person Assessment based on the current budget needs. A one deeded property might obtain a reduction of the Assessment in the first year but as I tried to explain, this would increase as residents drop people from current deeds and other items are factored in. And also no, the RCSC does not “give away” memberships. The current rules are based on a per residence Assessment and there are no free memberships. I’m surprised you’re weary of this discussion since looking at the number of times you have posted on this topic, I would assume this is your highest priority in life. Possibly I was wrong about your motivation but please understand that I’m just trying to provide more information from a historical perspective so that current stakeholders can make informed decisions as this subject will not just go away. I also worry that many of us who have been very generous in our younger years will transition to the “me first” generation and not look out for our most vulnerable neighbors who are the most impacted by changes to the annual Assessment.
No surprise here 3GSCAZ, i love the historical references. History matters. I seldom waste time arguing data that is marginal at best. What's the old adage? Liar's figure and figure's lie. Literally everything can be twisted to fit a narrative. For example your argument over "cheaters" has a kernel of truth (yes it could happen and has), but from a statistical standpoint it would be tiny at best. Sun City West wrestled with it and solved it years back. That said, they are light years ahead of us technology wise. Shame on all of us for letting that happen. I know eyesopen continues to use my comments as the reason we should change back to a single payment structure. The problem is, i simply have not argued we should do that. I have stated, i wish we would never have gone there. The reason other senior community's haven't is because it isn't "fair." The reason we did was for accounting purposes. It simplified it, but was it a smart choice? Given the data eo posted from the census (as flawed as it was), we clearly know the numbers of singles living in Sun City have grown. When the day comes they out number the married is the day i expect we will see a massive push for change. Until then, i would love to see some effort to acknowledge the disparity. Even something as small as punch cards for guests (like we got when we bought here before we were old enough to live here), at least it was something. I now it sounds trite, but the adage that once the toothpaste is out of the tube, you can't put it back comes to mind. I know we have belabored this point and i will do so again: There is simply too much stuff on the board's plate right now to be flirting around the idea we should change back to a per person payment. Here's why and i want you to think about this: For the past 20 years, the data shows us that every home in Sun City has sold at least once. Let me be very clear; we know every home hasn't sold, but using the sum total of 27,500 homes, we know that more than that have sold. Many of them more than once, some never. In fact, if we were to dig up the actual number of Sun City homes sold since 2003, it would be hovering between 30,000 and 35,000. That means every buyer of those properties purchased knowing the terms and conditions (or should have known), when they bought their home, they were going to pay a full lot assessment, whether there was one person on the deed or two. I get it, once they moved in, they found out their neighbors who owned before 2003 were treated differently, but they agreed to the terms. On the other hand, couples purchased knowing their terms and conditions. They knew and understood for their single lot payment they would get two rec cards. Change that now and the lawsuits would be flying. Sorry, but it's the nature of the beast. We live in a litigious society and any board member who fails to understand that would be seriously flawed by failing to acknowledge their fiduciary responsibility to the RCSC. Hope that helps, as i wish we had never gone to a single lot assessment, but fixing it only makes matters worse. Old and tired had the best suggestion; grandfather existing owners and make new buyers pay a single payment of $525 and then let them add a second deed holder for the cost of a privilege card. The problem comes years down the road when they too become angry because they are being treated differently than everyone else. Then what?
