Follow-up: Mountain View Center Town Hall Presentation,Tues. 9/16/2025

Mountain View Recreation Center Town Hall Presentation

Tuesday, September 16, 2025, from 5:30-9:00 pm at
Sundial Center

Join the RCSC Board for an in-depth presentation from triARC regarding the current progress for the Mountain View Recreation Center. During the session, triARC will present a programming recap. A Member Q&A session will immediately follow the presentation. Please click the link to the triARC programming recap video HERE.

Hope to see you there OR
❓Unable to attend the Mountain View Town Hall, Tuesday, September 16, 2025❓
❗️WATCH IT LIVE at 5:30pm on the RCSC YouTube channel, or view video, usually next day.❗️https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT_o8IFjU_U
#

Source: RCSC Eblast Friday, September 12, 4:41 pm HERE.

 

I watched the presentation closely and one thing stood out to me, actually two things:
1). Almost every user group (stakeholder) wanted exactly what they had, only more.
2). The costs of the 5 options were staggeringly high. They admitted upfront everything was high-balled.

On a sub-note, the data was also fascinating; especially taken in context with what groups were asking for. I'll be fascinated to listen to the rationale for keeping or adding to what groups have when the data doesn't dictate doing so. At some point, reality has to set in and expectations between what we want and what we need has take hold.

I was surprised to see the theater explode to 400 plus seats. I was surprised to see the additional pool, beyond the spa and the existing pool. I was surprised to see the size of the fitness area. I was surprised to see the number of optional covered pickleball courts and the relative costs. I was shocked to see the lawn bowlers requesting shaded gathering space. Then again, this is what happens when we ask members what they want.

It's become akin to kids visiting Santa at the mall or department store at Christmas time. Ask for it all and hope you get it. When i look at the related numbers associated with what members told them they wanted, my immediate reaction was we simply cannot afford it all; not even close.

I don't use Mountain View. I'm not going to die on the hill over what's there or what isn't. I am a fan, a proponent of spending money wisely. Every consideration of what is done there needs to be in conjunction with what they are doing fitting in with the rest of the community's needs. Centers shouldn't be considered one-offs or a stand-alone.

I have written often about "big-picture Sun City." This exercise will be the classic example of doing what is best for the community and not just a small portion of those who live near the center or who will use it. That's not to say it shouldn't be done, but it best be done right (truly a subjective term but everything is at some point).

The tragedy is this remodel should have been done 10 year ago, the costs would have been a fraction and the wasted reinventing the wheel over and over again could have been avoided. Too bad, but hopefully we've learned something from all of these past mistakes.

We'll see eh?

 

I feel the added cost of adding a theater to the center should be decided by the members, not just the board. Adding a theater is going to raise yearly assessments for every homeowner in Sun City due to additional expenses to maintain it. This is beyond the exorbitant costs to create such space. Just my opinion.

 

I'll tell you again; for less than $1 million dollars they can provide approximately 352 tiered retractable, cushioned seating, and an additional 300 matching removable seating for the flat floor area in the Sun Dial auditorium. The East and West wings can be set-up with the usual tables and chairs like they do during concerts if more seating is required.

The retractable seating units do not need to be bolted to the floor, so the stories we've been told that there needs to be an 8' wide aisle behind the seats, occupying too much floor space is not true. The units come with motorized wheels so that the units, once retracted, can be motored back against the walls occupying only 4'-6" of floor space.

The price includes supply, delivery and installation, protective floor panels to prevent damage to the floor as well as trolleys to store the removable seating, training, maintenance, and operating manuals.

A much, MUCH more economical (and fiduciary) use of the Members money.

Just my opinion, as well as my money!

 

I also watched the video and found the ideas interesting, but pricey.
Parking was such an issue when the SAC was working on the MV project. I did not see nor hear any mention of parking conflicts during the presentation.
I believe each option is affordable, with the new PIF monies collected and to be collected.
Overall I think Tri-arc did some excellent work.

 

Do we continue to spend money on the contigency that it will continue to pour in? Arent there other items also needing attention and requiring PIF funds? I am not in favor of mortgaging everything for the sake of a theater. Dont know how much longer I will be this side of the dirt, but am not in favor of creating such a deficit within the budget for the sake of a single building. As long as I live here, I will also be responsible for paying the yearly assessments. Let us keep it reasonable for now and for the future.

 

I agree with the other commentators. The presentation is much better than the ill-fated MV option 2 bum's rush presentation. However, I like Carole, am bothered by the Board's conclusion that we must build a third performing arts venue at a cost of well over $20M. I agree with Tom's conclusion that Sun Dial could easily and relatively inexpensively (less than $5M) be adapted and scheduled for the 100 +/- member Player's Club's to perform three plays a year. IMHO Triarc was not allowed to take a serious look at this option. The things I found lacking in the presentation are as follows:

1. The utilization figures for the MV auditorium are readily available but the Board chose not to provide this information to Triarc. Similarly, the Board chose not to provide the actual attendance figures at the three plays the Player's club performs each year. The result is the vast majority of the project capital cost is not supported by actual data. I believe Steve Oaks reported during the SAC MV town halls that average attendance at the plays was about 108 +/-.
2. It seems to me the presentation assumes that all the performing arts groups who provided input would move their performances to the new MV PAC. This means that less than 10 performances, which are currently easily accommodated at Sun Dial, would move to MV and leave Sun Dial further underutilized. Moreover, many of the performances draw much more attendance than the seating capacity at new MV could accommodate. That would mean each group would need to perform several shows.

My one man's opinion is that building a third performing arts venue is simply unaffordable and a foolish expenditure. If you disagree, please show me actual data that shows me the "light".

Thanks,

John

 

What I found lacking was a more detailed explanation of the PAC! Sure, they said they're going to build one, but is it a brand new building or renovating the existing building? I heard 400 seats, but are they retractable seating so that the space could be utilized for other venues or are they thinking of a sloped floor?

Seems to me, the big stink over the last many, many years was in reference to a PAC, but this presentation seemed to concentrate on everything but?

 

I apologize in advance for the length of my opinion. My personal goal for the SAC was to be transparent with data and welcome all opinions so that I could learn as much as possible about the wants versus the needs and how they fit into the Mountainview project. Even though the SAC devolved into a political quagmire there was a great deal of data brought to light that is useful to the decision makers if they chose to use it.

IMHO the largest elephant in the room continues to be whether building a new performing arts center for +/- 20M (my guess) is the best use of our limited PIF resources. Some say yes while others say no. IMHO the Board has chosen to present this as an item that cannot be discussed. My own opinion, based on listening to all sides, is that a performing arts center could be a good use of funds, but we do not have the programs to support it and, as far as I know, have no plans to develop new programs to increase the utilization of a PAC to an acceptable level. We also have viable alternatives that are much less expensive for meeting the needs of the Player's Club.

My understanding is the board is going to vote, presumably on what plan to move forward with at the September Board Meeting. I recommend giving members a 90-day period to provide written comments and make all the comments public. After this period, I would survey the members to determine if the level of support among the membership for spending the money to move forward into the design phase.

Just one man's opinion.

 

Member input is available at the Town Hall which hopefully influences the board’s decision to be presented at the next board meeting, Thursday, September 25th.

Mountain View Recreation Center Town Hall Presentation

Tuesday, September 16, 2025, from 5:30-9:00 pm at
Sundial Center

Join the RCSC Board for an in-depth presentation from triARC regarding the current progress for the Mountain View Recreation Center. During the session, triARC will present a programming recap. A Member Q&A session will immediately follow the presentation. Please click the link to the triARC programming recap video HERE.
Hope to see you there.
#

Source: RCSC Eblast Friday, September 12, 4:41 pm HERE.

 

Yes, I agree with giving members ample opportunity to analyze all options. Why make a quick decision when we have taken this long to get where we are presently?

PAC or no PAC? My take is why not? Does Sun City really need 8 or is it 9 rec centers? 8 or is it 10 golf course? And so on with number of amenities.

Make the PAC a multiple purpose facility with retractable seating. I’m guessing more must be revealed.

 

Member Q &A is not sufficient for the amount of discussion needed. Is this another 3 minute limit? Since it’s being labeled as a question and answer period it would appear the decision has been made. An opportunity to discuss with the board, options available, is not a Q$A session.

 

Modify Sundial into a theater type setting. Much less cost, better utilization.

 

Did everyone see there are FIVE options in the presentation?
HERE:

 

Yes I did, but all included the same PAC. Are there different options for the PAC?

 

The presentation is not expanded beyond Mountain View. So stating to reexamine the presentation for additional views is a moot point. It concentrates on a single location and costs significant money.

 

A quick bit of history/trivia before i anger all of you clamoring for the quick fix "give the Players Sundial for their plays."

John Fast referenced three venues above; they would be the Mountain View Auditorium, the Sun Dial Auditorium and the Sun Bowl. Did you know? The Players have put on plays at all three. I wish Ben were still with us (he could tell you the plays), but i know they used each of the venues, i think the Sun Bowl and Sundial only one time each.

The Sun Bowl has it's obvious drawbacks and while Sundial looks like an option, it's not. It is the one flat space with the most use; in excess of 60%. Scheduling conflicts are a nightmare now with clubs angered for being bounced on a regular basis. Imagine if the Players had to use it for two or three plays a year.

I suspect many of you say, what's the big deal? The 12 or 18 times the play is held (Friday, Sat and Sundays) would be problematic, but what about the 2 or 3 month lead up where practices are held daily? I know, stick them somewhere else? Where? How well does that work with a location removed from where the play will be held? The stage and the area behind it would need a complete renovation; including storage area and set design.

Let's continue. Sundial houses the Thursday night bingo and in season every seat is filled. How many seats would we lose with whatever conversion is needed? And so we are abundantly clear, that single event, after years and years of happening, has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Sun City organizations.

One of Sun City's largest single draws to our community, the two day Craft sale after Thanksgiving, jams the place. Losing any room at that with the conversion would be bad. It just gets crazy crowded.

The scheduling conflicts pose way too many problems to ignore or pretend its not a big deal. I know many of you see it the easy way out, it's not.

The real issue, after all the fluff of a half a dozen stops and starts at Mountain View is the question everyone tries to avoid (other than John); Do we need a theater? At all? I've always understood the ugliness of the question. The Players has been in existence since 1961. They've been a community staple. They've been promised a PAC for years and those who didn't want it just kept shuffling it off to Buffalo.

Watching the triArc presentation helped me plow through the question. Tom's right, there isn't much said about the theater, other than projected costs and number of seats. It was pretty clear what was shown was what the stakeholders wanted, not what they were willing to take. Looking at the layout proposed for the theater, it's also pretty clear we aren't talking about a renovation but a complete tear down/rebuild.

Before i conclude, my take has always been the best solution was a multi-purpose venue at Lakeview. Best location offering the most options for utilization. Sadly, we won't have the money in PIF until well after 2032. I suspect even that is being generous. It's not a realistic option.

I learned the value/importance of compromise a long time ago. As i watched the triArc presentation i saw a lot of possibilities. In every case, compromise would be part and parcel. Some folks will not be happy, many of those dreaming large would have to suffer downsizing and options they hadn't considered.

I could color in the lines, what's the point. Members voices need be heard and we already know those wanting what they want will be out in force. In the end, common sense with an eye on what we can afford will be best served. Nope, not in favor of kicking the can down the road yet again. It's time to make some hard decisions and then move forward.

Tuesday evening will be interesting for sure.

 

YES, it is!

 

And where do you suppose they will practice once the renovations at MV begin? Probably Sun Dial. And if not Sun Dial, then where, and why can't Sun Dial be used with retractable and removable seating for performances and have the Players continue to practice wherever that space is?

And is there a problem with retracting the seating units, which only occupies 4'-6" when closed and parked up against the back wall, and just continue to set up the folding chairs for Bingo nights?

Yup! But that's just a 2 day event, once a year! So we should build the argument around a 2 day event as opposed to the cost of millions of dollars?

There are several underutilized flat floor spaces at other Rec Centers. I think with a little effort and rescheduling Sun Dial, IMHO, is the best bag for the buck!

 

We already know there will be a problem once whatever is going to be done at Mountain View starts. The Players threw out some suggestions during SAC, none were at Sundial. The music room at Fairway was one of them, the other was to rent or buy the former building housing the Olive Branch Senior Center. The former was crazy expensive, the music room suffers the same challenges with scheduling. The reality is, the options are few and far between.

I know you minimize the difficulties of just shoving them into Sundial Tom, but they are real and pretending otherwise is folly. Sorry, but take a look at the scheduled events at Sundial and then tell me how workable it is. And, shoving the practice sessions that will number 80-100 per year isn't an easy accomplishment either.

If the Sundial had been a workable solution, it would have been done years ago. It's why i mentioned the history, it's not like they haven't used it, they decided not to keep using it.