Silly question? Hardly. The answer is easy: Always was, always will be. With that out of the way, let's have a serious discussion about the bigger question: Are we only a golfing community? Easier answer; never was, never will be. If we look back to opening day 1960, you will see the front 9 holes of the North course well on its way to completion. The second 9 followed quickly as the goal was to have homes line the 18 holes with premium prices tacked on to the lots ($1250 per). Think about it; it was one of the ways they paid for the cost of the land for the course and it was the draw to help people buy here. Those of you who know a little of our history will remember Del Webb was an avid golfer. Though he started later in life in the game, he loved it with a passion and was a gifted golfer. Lots of old pictures of him playing and one of my favorite was one with him and Bob Hope as they strolled along the North course, which caused quite the stir in the community. That said, the simple reality is there has never been more than 20% of the population living here that played golf. In fact, the projections from those early years was roughly 15-17% of the buyers to be golfers. There were obvious other reasons for the courses to exist, and here an older article from 55 Places that help explain it. Before we move on to present day, let's just add a quick overview for readers who are uninitiated to the original Sun City AZ. We are approximately three miles wide and 7 miles long. There are 8 golf courses owned by the RCSC (given to them by DEVCO for $10 and a cup of coffee) and 3 private country clubs. The privates used to be owned by residents who bought stock ownership when joining but over the past 15 years all have been sold to small investor groups or individuals. It is almost staggering to have 11 golf courses contained within the walls of the community. If you look at a map of Sun City you will see, 4 courses in phase 1, 4 courses in phase 2 and 3 courses in phase 3. They are well spaced and provide an amazing ambiance of lush open green spaces across the community. Still with me? All good so far, but the story gets far better more interesting when we delve into how we have evolved and where we are/have headed. See you soon.
Let's start this post with something i believe: NUMBERS MATTER. Sorry for shouting it, but all too often, we forget that and take what we see/hear at face value. Before i go down that road, it's important to help readers understand a Sun City dynamic most never consider: We average well over 2000 homes sales per year and have for a long time. There's lot's of flips that convolute the actual number of new residents moving into the community on a yearly basis, but suffice to say it's staggering. Let me show you why: We have 27,000+ rooftops in Sun City. With 2000 sales per year, over a 10 year period, more than 50% of the resident population turns over. The obvious question becomes; so what? Simply put, as we see this kind of turnover, people lose sight of how the community was built. They move in not knowing the history and the foundations the community was originally constructed around. I almost always talk about the importance of telling/selling Sun City on the premise that when they buy here they also are buying into the idea we are taking ownership of the process; that if you don't, we will eventually lose the tenets that made us different. But there's more, and it feeds into the deeper issue of this topic; golf. Some of you reading this will know the Del E Webb Development Corporation (DEVCO) had two activities they saw as different from all others. Golf and 10 pin bowling were free-standing. They understood the importance of making them cost-neutral. When we bought here in 1999, it was common knowledge within the community those two sports would in fact pay their own way. My guess is if we polled the current population, the vast majority would have no idea that was and still should be the case. All of this matters because the original point i shouted at you is, numbers do matter. How the RCSC accounts for budgeting and break-downs of annual capital investments do matter. Let me be clear, the discussion/debate over where PIF and annual budgets go is in the purview of the board. That said, the board has a fiduciary obligation to know the history, know the actual numbers and insure the information we are given is in fact accurate. This post is long enough for now, but i will be back to dig deeper into what should be simple math and assessment. Clearly for the long range planning committee and the board to be effective, it is important for them to understand how and where dollars are spent.
The point of this exercise is to simply try and open some eyes. Last year, on at least two occasions, i had discussions with either an existing board member and a candidate for this years board where we clearly disagreed on how much money had been allocated for golf since the inception of the PIF and into the coming calendar years (as posted on their long range planning budget). Both were adamant my projections of 40 million dollars was nowhere near what had been or was going to be spent. Of course, that got my juices flowing because while i am no accounting major, i do try and pay attention. To help resolve the matter i requested PIF monies spent since it began in 1999. I quickly got the figures and was astounded by what i saw, and which helped me understand why they were so sure i was wrong. The bottom line breakout said there had been roughly 38+million dollars spent on centers and 22+ million spent on golf. This is the information that is widely shared with the community, board and committee members. The devil is almost always contained in the details, so i started digging. At first blush, i found any number of items i would consider to be golf related, but were assigned to the centers side. The golf/maintenance buildings, the Riverview patio, golf software and hardware all seemed to me should fall under golf. But to be fair, those weren't all that much in total, but if you think about it, two million from one side of the ledger, posted to the other becomes a 4 million dollar swing. The bigger issue for me was substantial improvements made over the years that appeared nowhere on PIF budgets. The South maintenance building wasn't anywhere to be found, the South course renovation from the mid 2000's was missing as was the WillowCreek remodel from around 2009 (and those were just the ones off the top of my head). It triggered an immediate question as to why they didn't appear at all. The answer was quick; those were taken from capital expenditures, not assigned to PIF. Of course that prompted another question; was that capital expense then billed back to golf so as to insure it factored into their yearly effort to work with a balanced budget. No surprise, the answer was no. I will be the first to admit, i don't know how much money has been paid out of capital expenditures on a yearly basis on golf, but my recollection was it wasn't nickles and dimes. I would hazard a guess of at least 5 million dollars, but i suspect it would be light as an estimate. The reason it matters is because without knowing these answers, we aren't really comparing apples to apples. It would easily move the golf PIF expenditures to the other side of 30 million dollars, with another 10 million slated over the next two or three years, which gets us to the 40 million i have been saying. One of the reasons for my self-imposed exile was my frustration over board members not having a clue about the real dollars spent on golf; but then why should they? They get a balance sheet that shows 22+ million dollars and assume it is correct. All of which takes me back to my original premise in this thread: NUMBERS MATTER. To be perfectly clear, i am not against spending money on golf or our golf courses as amenities. If it needs it, spend it. But damn it, spend it from the PIF, bill it accordingly and be as transparent as humanly possible. It is only then the board and or committees working with these numbers can make choices based on reality.
One of the reasons for this thread is to help those living here and potential buyers to come to grips with the importance of how the community is run. Sun City is clearly different from where they came and most often new owners are more focused on enjoying all Sun City has to offer. That said, one of the most important aspects of the community is the fact we are self-governed; that as owners, we have both the right (and i would argue, the obligation) to at the very least pay attention to what is going on around them. I get it, truly i do. Who wants to get involved in the minutia of budgets and how we spend money on amenities and assets? Hell, if board members think the real dollars invested in our golf courses is 22 million dollars, why should anyone else give a rat's behind? Who wants to challenge/question what column gets assigned a couple million dollars here or there? Who is going to stick their hand in the air and ask why golf and 10 pin bowling is no longer accountable for working within the perimeters set when DEVCO put the concept together? The problem for me is, it does matter. It does matter as we struggle to keep pace with other, newer age restricted communities. It does matter as the evolving needs/wants of boomers are wholly different from the greatest generation buyers. It's why when as a board member i spoke long and hard against dissolving the long range planning committee. It was a slap in the face to the community at large as the board and the management team acted as if we don't matter. As you saw in the thread i posted earlier on the Long Range Planning Committee's minutes, the entire damn process is starting from scratch. For my money, this committee holds the key to trying to get a handle on where we should be heading. Hopefully those attending will demand good information. Hopefully their charge will be to look long and hard at what others are doing, and why. They don't have to reinvent the wheel, but they desperately need pay attention to the direction others are taking. Most new age restricted don't own golf courses, if there is one, it is owned by an outside entity and there are reasons for that. I started this thread with a simple premise: Sun City is a golfing community. We were built that way, and we are locked into staying one. The thing that cannot happen is for golf to be non-accountable. PIF was created to give the RCSC remarkable flexibility in how they spend that revenue we collect on a yearly basis. That too is a good thing. What should never happen is for capital expenditures be used rather than PIF. And when they do spend PIF, if it is golf related, it should in fact be billed to golf and not buried as centers expense.
When I bought I did not realize the strength of golfing as related to the budget. I suppose that's my fault but it's not easy when you are planning to pack up and move in retirement and trying to find the best place to live. If I had waited a few more years and learned more I might have bought elsewhere, not only because of golfing expenditure but it's certainly a factor. The idea of golf dominating the budget sounds so odd and archaic. I would not be against having a course or even two, like other retirement communities. And yes the green space looks good when driving by them. But eight in a community of 37,000 people seems rather ridiculous. Is Sun City West the same?
A final thought or two here; I know the two board members, one previous, one current have told me they read this site. I would encourage them to step up and refute anything i have written above. Seems to me they could easily clear up the questions as to how much money has been allocated from the general account towards golf over the years so we can get a better look at just how much money has been put into our golf courses. Perhaps more importantly is for readers to understand how PIF and general ledger accounting differ and why it matters. Yearly the RCSC collects lot assessment fees from each property. Along with revenue from golf, 10 pin bowling, privilege card holders, ticket show sales and contributions from clubs, it makes up how the RCSC fund all yearly expenses. Within that framework, they also use portions for club/facility improvements. Because golf and 10 pin bowling are supposed to be self-sustaining, they would not be (but for some reason have been) included in the upgrades from capital expenditures. I have written often the biggest single event in our history was the RCSC board's decision to incorporate into it's structure the Preservation and Improvement Fund (PIF). Our documents prohibit the RCSC from going into debt for more than $750 K without a vote of the members. The beauty of the program was it allowed them to use the revenue from the point of sale of each home in ways they saw fit. The two requirements were it needed to be for a 15 year duration and it was at least 300K. That allowed the RCSC to spend huge chunks of money without encumbering those living here, or getting their approval. Amenity improvements were paid by those who purchased homes (much in the way DEVCO paid for them as they built the centers and courses). It was and still is the best of all solutions. And it is why i am so adamant those allocations are clear, concise and all inclusive of monies spent on golf coming from the PIF and not general accounting. Until and unless we function like that, we lose sight of how this community was built.
Hey C, good question and one i'm no expert on. I have heard Sun City West residents lament the higher rec fees there being due the fault of subsidizing their golf, but no idea if that is true or just sour grapes. They have 8 or 9 golf courses, but with a third less the population. Sun City Grand has 4 golf courses, but again with a far smaller resident base than Sun City West. If you think about it, all three Sun City communities were started from 1060-1095 and golf was king. The bottom didn't fall out till the 2000's and by then these communities all felt the golf boom would go on forever. Unfortunately the two factors helping shrink the number of players, time and money, played a major role in how people looked at where they now buying. In an article on 55Places, any number of boomers stated they would not buy into a retirement community that included golf courses because they could easily become cash cows. We don't have the luxury to rid ourselves of our courses so the best case scenario is to figure out how to make them as cost neutral as we can. No small task because no matter how you cut it, they are labor-intensive. Think not, walk down any street adjacent to one of our courses, pre-dawn and see the workers out with the lights on their machines readying the course and that's 7 days a week, 365 days a year. It's just the nature of the beast, and it only gets worse when you add in the massive water cost, fertilizer and related cost.
I guess SCW is no better then as far as the golf game goes. One of the reasons I chose SC was its larger size. I would have rather stayed in California but the retirement communities are 1000-2000 in size. Too small for me. One was 12,000 but it was too resort-like. I wanted more the size of a city. SC has other things I like better than most too. The coyotes worry me a bit because I have two small dogs. I would never leave them out in the yard but I still hear stories about problems when taking them on a walk.
Here's the beauty of sites like this one C; we can have an open discussion about the community, the good, the bad and the ugly. I started this thread with a irrefutable premise; Sun City is a golfing community. As such, buyers must expect to see assets invested in preserving them as amenities. You knew coming in the RCSC would be investing in golf. My guess is you didn't have a clue just how much. And, that's why i HATE when they hide the distribution by shifting costs to the center side of the PIF or take the money from the capital side but don't attach it to their costs to show how much we are subsidizing the sport. It's the tragedy of losing the Long Range Planning Committee or worse yet when it was there telling them thy had no input to golf investments (about 75% of the PIF). Allowing a small handful of management or board members to make those kinds of decisions was never the way this community was built. But, as i pointed out, how many new owners know the history or structure that lead to our unparalleled success? To be clear, i have never said don't invest in golf and never would. Where my nose gets out of joint is when 40 million dollars goes to golf over a 10-12 year period. When those same investments could be made over 20 or 25 years. Think about it in these terms; whenever you have visitors in from out of state where do you think they are taken? To the Bell Rec Center and Fairway Rec Center (our 2 flagships), or to see the new patio and sand traps at the North and Riverview golf courses? Our centers are the bread and butter of our existence. And if you want to take it a step further, we know new age restricted communities aren't building golf courses or for that matter large numbers of rec centers, but one or two that serve as gathering/central hub locations. It's time for us to come to grips with our competition and do it better/smarter. But what the hell do i know, i wasn't qualified enough to get on the long range planning committee (said with a smirk).
Thanks Bill, and hopefully this will be required reading for the Long Range Planning Committee, with quizzes and everything. If I might paraphrase you, Long Range Planning has to include some serious Long Range looking backwards as well as forwards.
I am not going to go as far as saying Sun City is a golf community, but rather Sun City is simply a Community in which golf has played a major part historically. Community governance focuses on power that communities exercise in order to achieve policy outcomes that suit their needs. The needs of the Sun City community have changed dramatically since the community first opened in 1960. Demographics have changed, tastes have changed, time demands have changed, people are living longer (80 year olds don't typically play golf), women have a greater say in community governance and community amenities (thank goodness!), and golf has declined in popularity with boomers. For Sun City governance to ignore these changing needs and continue their past spending practices on golf is grossly irresponsible. But don't take my word for it, consider this other Sun City community that was grappling with these same issues in 2012: https://www.reviewjournal.com/life/...nder-if-golf-course-closure-would-save-money/ Sun City governance needs to understand the true cost of a round of golf, including PIF, as well as utilization rates, percentage of golfers in the community, future trends, and the needs of people moving into the community in the next 5, 10, 20, 30 years. When the millennials start retiring, golf may hold no place in a retirement community. They need to understand the opportunity cost of that $40 million spent on golf is a new community center or some other amenity. What will better serve the Sun City community into the future? I recognize these are tough issues just as the power plant must be built in somebody's back yard lest the community have no electricity. Change of this magnitude can be upsetting. I'm waiting for that person in Sun City governance to say the emperor has no clothes. As I watched the last candidate forum and the minutes of the first long range committee meeting, I keep waiting for that person to emerge. Bill was that person, but was shunned by an establishment that doesn't want to look into the future and is loathe (should I say lacks courage?) to change. Until then, we have this forum as a means to let community governance know they are not suiting our needs.
I read the article. At least they are discussing it. Would homeowners on some golf courses be ok if it were planted with native plants that didn't require as much upkeep and little water? They would still have a good view and that would lower the upkeep. Who knows unless they are presented with the cold hard monetary facts and asked. They could be the ones to help create the solution. Who knows until someone asks.
Thanks for the link R, good stuff. We looked at Sun City Summerlin the summer of 99, the year we bought in Sun City. The models (like they always are) were spectacular, as were the prices. Living in or near Vegas would have been the death of us. Back then i loved to gamble. The bigger point you made and reinforced by the video of course is there should always be legitimate discourse on whatever pressing issues exist within the community. The day the board removed the long range planning committee was the day the pretense went by the bye. I say pretense because the reality was they had no voice/input into how much money was going to be shoveled at golf. The closest thing the RCSC did was to go to courses and ask the various committees there what they wanted...truly a kid in a candy store approach. The irony of course is last year several of the committees at Willowbrook started petitions not to do the courses but the RCSC forced them to remove them from the property. Let's take it a step further; to have any legitimate discussion/analysis, you need real numbers, not have truths and hidden figures. You need rounds played year by year. You need projections based on solid information. How about something as simple as polling new buyers on whether golf is in their future? There are so many things that could be done, if they really wanted to know what the role of golf will be and just how much money are they pissing down a rat hole. And let me just finish with this thought, seeing as you brought it up. Had we bought the lakes club for 3.5 million dollars and put another 3 million into it, we would have added a massive 38,000 square foot community center on the lake. It would have meant delaying one golf course renovation and we wouldn't be dicking around putting millions into a piece of property on Grand Ave that will always be a security risk and always be an island unto itself. But as i pointed out, what do i know about stuff like this eh?
You are thinking the same way I am thinking, Cynthia. What exactly are the obligations with regard to the golf courses? Can the deed restrictions be changed or the property be used in some other fashion? Let’s say theoretically golf dwindled to nothing or it became economically unfeasible to maintain the courses, what would be the obligation in those cases? What constitutes golf? Would a driving range be sufficient? Mini golf? Frisbee golf? Limited hole course? As Cynthia says, at least they are discussing it. Who will be the first elected or campaigning official to say the emporer has no clothes?
Is there anyone who could pull (public information) the deed restrictions (CC&R’s) on the golf courses, which will go a long way toward determining how the property may be used (for instance it might say golf or other recreational activity) and how they may be changed. This is an emerging legal area as many communities and municipalities are dealing with deed restrictions on golf courses that are no longer economically sustainable and they need alternatives. Here is one of many such issues: https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/aug/28/who-gets-to-decide-when-the-golf-course-can-shut-d/ Some of these restrictions sunset and some require renewal. I’m guessing Del Webb gave the community some flexibility in how the property could be used should circumstances change.
Ok, they are concerned about lawsuits. Couldn't RCSC make a financial arrangement and pay off the homeowners based on an agreed premium amount they paid to buy and sell. In the long run it might come out cheaper. I know it's deeded as a golf course, but wasn't the intention to mean you just can't build houses on it? I don't think anyone is saying build more houses. Does the deed force RCSC to maintain them as functional golf courses? Need to see the language in the deed.
I agree the deed language holds the key. Just to be clear, I wasn’t suggesting the golf courses be repurposed for more housing. What I had in mind was open space parks and walking trails. These are the things boomers want and the newer 55+ communities are building in lieu of unsustainable golf courses. Frankly, I think it would make the houses on the golf courses more valuable...plus no more broken windows and loud thumps during the day. Think of the value of being able to walk out your back yard for a stroll. But it really doesn’t matter what I think, but what the community thinks. The long range planning committee needs to think big and think long range. More of the same ain’t cutting it. There will come a day (now?) when we can’t self-sustain all these courses and it will mean pouring good money after bad. This issue is not unique to Sun City and many communities and municipalities are sitting on albatrosses that require a new and different solution. Let me say again, there is an opportunity cost to golf. That opportunity cost may be a spanking new community center that is enjoyed by more than 5-7% of the residents. It may be a beautiful park. It may be natural hiking trails. As someone posted earlier, the oligarchy is not representing the community.
