Maybe some of you are sick of hearing this? Hell, maybe some of you are golfers and want the 88% of us that don't golf to help subsidize your cost to play. Clearly board members along the way who were golfers didn't give two shits if the RCSC shoveled bushel baskets of money into their beloved sport, which truly is a "conflict of interest." To be clear, management and board members have had free reign to dump large amounts into golf courses via the PIF. One would have expected those massive infusions of money into golf to be adequate, but obviously it wasn't enough. They still needed more. Now we find out that golf has been deficit spending for years. and on top of that, there appears to be "Capital Expenditures" allocated to golf that wasn't billed back to it. If someone is curious, just fill out a request from the RCSC for the "Capital Expenditures" worksheet for each of the last 15 years. I suspect the totals will be staggering. If i am wrong, please, someone from the board or management feel free to correct me. Now i get it. When i confronted the gm about the documents regarding golf and her answer was "plausible deniability." it all makes sense. Just argue, i didn't know, I never saw it in writing, nobody really cares anyway. Take your pick, they all work, i guess. The problem is, all of us living here for a long time knew the deal the courses were taken under. We all knew that the golf courses were only accepted by the RCSC because the agreement was, they must pay for themselves with the money they take in. Hell, the agreement included 50% of the costs to maintain Viewpoint lake. It was that specific. Just for shits and giggles, i've been reading the newspaper articles we clipped and saved in the Museum's archives. In an effort to break them up, i will post three of them from 1975 when the 18 month trial period was first negotiated. It's why all of the old-timer's in the community knew the terms and conditions the courses were taken under. It wasn't a secret. It was done so that the vast majority of the members would feel comfortable owning golf courses and knowing they wouldn't be paying for golfers to play them from their yearly dues, now called lot assessments. I will post, each separate of one another, the relevant comments by RCSC board members in ensuing posts.
Do you in fact have a document that is signed by all parties that states that the courses must be self sustaining? if you do, please post them here for all to see. if not, let’s have an all out effort to obtain such documents from wherever we can.
Do the golf maintenance buildings fall into the golf budget or are they be charged to something else?
From the News Sun dated Sept 16, 1975. "The group will have to make a financial statement available to the board at any time. Waggoner (board president) said there will be an entirely separate accounting for the golf courses so the financial status of the courses can always be determined by the members. The courses will be operated on a self-sustaining basis, with dues to golfers sufficient to cover all costs. Regular dues will not increase."
The golf maintenance buildings being replaced like Lakes East/West fall under PIF and and the gm lists them as improvements under Amenities, not Golf. The actual costs of running them should be under the golf budgets, but who really knows?
The next article is from the Sun News dated 9-19-75. The header is: Valued at $7 Million: $10, a cup of coffee buys courses. Lengthy article but includes this: "Management and finances for the courses will be entirely separate from Rcc Center operations, Waggoner said. They will be operated on a self-sustaining basis, with dues and fees to golfers sufficient to cover all costs. Regular dues will not increase, he said." By the way, in the article it says, after the 18 month trial period, they will take ownership of all aspects of the running the courses, including pro shop, snack bars and cart rentals.
The final article is from The Combined YOUNGTOWN NEWS and SUN CITY SUN dated Tuesday September 23: "The courses will be operated on a self-sustaining basis, with dues and fees to golfers sufficient to cover all costs, and there will be no increase in regular Rec Center dues he said." There's a wonderful picture included with the article of John Meeker and Myron Waggoner included. Wagonner is holding a cup of coffee, a $10 bill and Meeker has a pen and the document for signature. It was a bargain to buy the courses for that price, but everyone knew and understood the terms and conditions they were bought under.
One final comment on this matter. In 1998 the RCSC had been looking at golf revenues and decided it was time to increase fees to match the costs. They proposed an increase from $640 to $825 dollars for the yearly pass. That card gave Sun City golfers the ability to play unlimited golf. You can do the math, but the reality was a person who golfed every day at the old price was way less that $2 per round and the new price would have been roughly $2.20 per round. Let's be honest, no one golfed every day. The avid golfers were about 5 days a week, so a more realistic figure at 250 rounds a year would have put the cost for the $825 at less than $3.50 per round. One hell of a bargain. The problem was a couple fold. Their implementation plan sucked and the golfers hated the increase. They threatened a recall on one of the board members for doing the math on the whole golf short fall of cash. Gofers have always been 10 % to 12 % of the Sun City population, but they are well organized and quickly rally golfers to speak out. Again, i'm not anti-golf. We have been and always will be a golfing community. The real question is at what cost? Other than last year when the pandemic hit and golf was the only game in town (literally) rounds have been decreasing. Everything else, water, seed, fertilizer, employee costs, equipment have all been on the rise. If we don't get our head and our hands around the problem right now, we will be crushed by what is coming at us. This board and the coming boards and the new management absolutely have to be clear on the terms these courses were taken under. If they don't we will be looking at eating the cost of golf even worse than we have other the past 15 years. It's that simple.
