RCSC IRS 990 2021

RECREATION CENTERS OF SUN CITY INC
IRS 990 December 2021
(filed November 15, 2022)
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/860214132/202243199349324829/full

Tax Filings by Year
2004 - 2021
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/860214132

Source: ProPublica Explorer, Research Tax Exempt Organizations

 

$145,000 seems like a small compensation for a General Manager of an entity that has assets of $125 M+, an operating budget of $25M, multiple facilities, 28,000 stakeholders, and several hundred employees. I hope our new search firm can give us feedback as to what is a ballpark figure for adequate compensation. I assume compensation includes salary AND benefits. I think we need to be competitive and not hope for someone who is looking for merely personal fulfillment.

 

Comparison:
Sun City West 990 2021
Total Salary includes financial earnings, benefits, and all related organization earnings listed on tax filing
Key Employees and Officers Compensation
WILLIAM SCHWIND (GENERAL MANAGER) $157,181
PETER FINELLI (CFO) $129,154
TODD PATTY (SR. MANAGER) $117,996
RUSS BOSTON (FACILITIES MANAGER) $108,203
DAN MAURER (SUPERINTENDENT PROJECT COORDINATOR) $106,663
KATHRINE OGRADY (GENERAL SERVICES OFFICER) $101,205
PATRICK OHARA (GOLF OPS MANAGER)


https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/860374506

 

Thanks, I like comparisons because there is a lot to be learned from them. I wouldn't sell a property without a professional appraisal and a look at the assessed value on my tax statement. Same type of logic applies here. We should also consider the net assets, number of stakeholders, employees, operating budgets, and age of facilities for SCW and any other comparable organizations.

 

Interestingly, Jan Ek received a raise in 2021,
Per RCSC 990 2020
Jan Ek, GM $134,087
Per RCSC 990 2021:
Jan Ek, GM
$142,160 plus $554 other compensation
Bill Cook, Interim GM
$105,549 plus $11,577 other compensation*

 

Yes, I noticed the raises. In my humble opinion, while it is nice to have a period of transition, six months is unusually long, especially when the incoming GM has been employed in the organization for a few years. That cost the Members a few extra dollars that might have bought new pool lounge chairs for Marinette and other rec centers that needed them for Members and their guests. Sorry, I can't let that one go!

 

Long before we go down the road of compensation, lets find someone with solid credentials interested in finding our way home. And to be clear, there's an enormous difference between what we pay people who have been around forever (which shouldn't happen) and what we pay them to walk in the door. I know the Sun City West GM hired a few years back didn't start at his current rate and clearly board members have been impressed with what he has done/been doing and they are compensating him accordingly. I like incentives based on reaching set, measurable goals.

We know, like everything else we do (other than construction bids/jobs), we try and get by on the cheap. Let's face it; it became our mantra, our calling card, "lowest costs in the nation." We need to re-evaluate that entire mindset. The problem of course is in our current structure and how we bill single owners a flat rate lot assessment. Large increases hurt single owners worse (for the most part).

We have the financial where-with-all to get our stuff together and start moving but it goes further than being the least expensive.

 

“The problem of course is in our current structure and how we bill single owners a flat rate lot assessment. Large increases hurt single owners worse (for the most part). “
How is it Sun City is the only area senior community that can’t budget per member?
Incompetency??
Time to stop rewarding dual deeded households with one paid full access to RCSC facilities/amenities per assessment AND one for FREE. Two memberships for the price of one!! Each membership needs to be paid for.
No more FREEBIES!!
(Yes, I am a single deeded owner/member tired of subsidizing those who have full access privileges for free.)

 

There's lots of folks like you eo that feel that way. While we can mask it any way that sounds fair, it's not. The loudest argument is it's just like your property tax, not based on the number of people living in the home, but the actual value of the property (per assessment by the county). The second most often used defense is it's the only way to generate/calculate the yearly revenue. Odd, everyone else that has payment on a per person basis can figure it out.

The challenge isn't in the question as to what's fair or right...it's how do you fix it? I wish it had never happened. I wish we were still on a per person basis. The 2003 grandfathering was a bad idea from the start and it was the only way for the community at large to agree to it. Protect those who were here and who had signed facilities agreements by guaranteeing them being entitled to the single rate into eternity.

In 2009 or 2010 the GM decided the existing home owners weren't moving or dropping dead fast enough so she got the board to change the terms of the grandfathering, claiming if you moved you were no longer covered. I have in my possession a letter from the RCSC a letter to the mortgage brokers and realtors just prior to the changes being passed that even with a sale of your home, you were still entitled to single payments. She knew what the agreement was, it didn't matter.

Neither here nor there for purposes of this discussion. The point really is, how do we change it without a shitstorm of controversy? The answer is you/we can't. No matter which way the mop flops someone will be angry. There's more married couples than there are singles. Grandfathering them will do nothing to change the yearly revenue stream but it will further divide the community with new 2-person home owners paying double what singles are paying and far more than existing 2-person home owners are paying.

That's why i say, it should never have been done in the first place. It was shortsighted and while there was some upside, there was far more downside.

 

I think it is best to hold off on this and get more immediate issues solved first.

 

“…with new 2-person home owners paying double what singles are paying…” Bill Pearson
Yes, that’s how comparable senior communities generate funding for their recreation centers and amenities memberships, per person!

One optional Recreation Center membership benefit with paid annual assessment, any other membership is an additional charge.

With all change there are those who will scream, “Who moved my cheese?” Doesn’t mean the necessary change shouldn’t go forward.

We can and should right this wrong!
As you wrote, “…it should never have been done in the first place. It was shortsighted and while there was some upside, there was far more downside.”
As a community, WE CAN DO THIS!

 

Agree, Janet, we have immediate issues to prioritize.
However, RCSC access, membership and privilege cards, needs to be on our radar!

Will the growing number of Sun City residential higher occupied group homes (up to 10 residents) impact RCSC facilities and amenities?

There is NO LIMIT on the number of “resident” non-owner RCSC privilege cards issued, as long as the owner has paid the required RCSC $525 annual property assessment fee, per our bylaws and verified by a cardmember staff member.
Privilege Cards

• Annual Privilege Card – $262.50
• Short-Term Privilege Card (30, 60, 90 days) – $75/person/month (as of January 1, 2017)

A qualifying non-owner, renter, tenant, lessee, occupant of a Sun City property may be eligible to purchase a Privilege Card. Please refer to the Corporate Bylaws and Board Policies for eligibility and process.
https://suncityaz.org/rcsc/cardholder-information/fees/

CORPORATE BYLAWS Amended May 25, 2023 ARTICLE II – MEMBERSHIP, CARDHOLDERS AND GUESTS SECTION 3: NON-OWNER PROPERTY RESIDENTS Non-Owners defined as renters, tenants, lessees, occupants, those granted lifetime use of Property who are not Owners and reside in a Property and meet the following criteria may be entitled to purchase a Privilege Card:
A. A Non-Owner may be issued a 30-day, 60-day, 90-day or annual Privilege Card for a fee, as determined by the Board, provided:
1. at least one Owner or Non-Owner who occupies the Property is 55 years of age or older;
2. the Non-Owner occupies the Property as his/her primary Arizona residence unless his/her other residence is farther than seventy-five (75) miles from Sun City, Arizona in which case the Non-Owner(s) must provide proof that he/she occupies the Property as well;
3. the Non-Owner is not under 19 years of age, and;
4. the assessments, fees and any and all other charges against the Property where such Non-Owner resides, are current.
https://470eec.p3cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023_05_25-BYLAWS-F.pdf

 

I did write it should have never been done but you ignored the rest of what i wrote. If it was as simple as someone moving some cheese, no problem. And while you posted the bylaws, i am more concerned by the agreement signed at the point of purchase; the facilities agreement (that is a legally binding contract). To be clear, one of the reasons they "grandfathered" previous owners was so they wouldn't be sued by single owners being forced to pay a full lot assessment. All of those single home owners were protected.

If the net gain is the only ones they can force this change on is new home buyers, the impact will be negligible; at least in the short run. In fact, if that is the case, i have no idea how you would fix it for current single home owners hoping to see their lot assessment halved. If they are unable to charge all of us two-card holders the higher rate, it literally collapses the current RCSC budgeting process.

It's a far more complicated problem than the old Nike commercial, just do it. That's why i wrote, they should never have gone there. Once they did, they dug themselves a hole that was near on impossible to escape. And let's be really clear, that kind of an action would rip the community to sherds and the board would be facing recall. The simple reality is there are more couples than singles. What they/we are doing isn't "fair" but i see no easy way out that doesn't cause more problems than it fixes.

A historical footnote for all of you: There was one other time in our history where there was a single lot assessment, rather than on a per person basis. It was in 1960 when they gave new home buyers the option of purchasing a membership to use Community Center (Oakmont). The cost was $40 per year (for a household). Only 60% of the buyers paid it and it was an ugly problem that lingered for owners in New Life Unit One until it was resolved in 1967.

The rest of the story is even better as DEVCO quickly (mid 1960) righted their ways as all the units built after that came with a facilities agreement. With everyone paying for the amenities, they were able to charge $12 a year, per person. It's simply too bad those living here didn't pay more attention to our history, we might have been able to avoid the crappy position we are in right now.

 

“…crappy position we are in right now.”
Sun City throwing hands up, accepting something that needs to be changed? SMH!

 

I get it, you don't like the deal you bought into. That's always been the argument btw, those were the terms and conditions you elected to purchase under; a single lot assessment payment irrespective if there was one or two owners on the deed. Yes it sucked when you moved in and realized your neighbor and his/her spouse were paying the sane as you. The reality is those buying here, in most cases, had no clue how it worked.

The better argument is for those who never use the amenities and they still pay the same $525. Why is that right? You know the answer as well as i do; those were the terms and conditions they signed on to. While serving on the board i tried to argue a point we had benefited from when we bought our house. We were 51 and rented it out during the winters. We visited the months it wasn't rented. Most of our vacations were spent here. We were paying our fees even though we couldn't use the facilities without a punch card (we knew that when we bought, those were the terms and conditions we agreed to). To our surprise, when we paid our yearly fees, they gave us each a 20 count punch card. It wasn't arms and legs but we appreciated it...made us feel better about the community and the RCSC.

I made that argument about single owners, give them a punch card so when they had guests they weren't paying even more. I might has well have been talking Greek. There was virtually no interest from fellow board members nor the GM. If something as simple as that was an abomination, can you imagine a proposal to charge couples two-times the single rate? If we were just talking "fairness, " it's a no-brainer. Sadly we are looking at changing the entire structure within the community and that's a hill too high for most to climb.

 

I absolutely signed closing documents agreeing to pay the required annual assessment.
What I fail to see disclosed is anything referencing the membership benefits associated with payment of the one fee (currently $525) per property.
Perhaps you can enlighten me?
https://470eec.p3cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Facilities-Agreement.pdf
RCSC experiences lost revenue with increased maintenance and staff expense by giving away free memberships. Every qualified individual resident of Sun City should pay to enjoy RCSC facilities and amenities.
Off my soapbox, for now…

 

I pay the full lot assessment and my better half pays for a $275 privilege card because he is not on the property deed. Therefore we are paying three times what some grandfathered Members are paying. Each and every year. I am not complaining because I knew this when I purchased the property. I assume there are many other Members in the same situation. Is it fair? No, but I don't think it is wise to take on this controversy at this time. There will be plenty of conflicting opinions this fall when the Ad Hoc committee on Mountain View reports back. Plus there will be varying views on the quorum for the Membership meeting, proxies, and any other bylaw changes that may be brought up between now and then. Not sure how many battles the Board should be taking on at the same time.

However, I think this inequity should be addressed at some point. Wouldn't it be less contentious if the current couples were grandfathered in under the current setup? I am sure they realize that once a spouse is no longer living, they will be paying the full assessment, but only have one Membership, rather than two. Most people can figure that out. Sure there will be some young couples that are grandfathered for several decades, but it might set us up for a more equitable situation in the long run.

That will require a different budgeting approach, but we can take some lessons from other 55+ communities. As has been said here before, those communities have continued to adequately budget for their operating expenses with one, not two, Membership cards per assessment. Stop the excuses!

 

It’s always been my understanding from the time we purchased our home 14 years ago was that this is an annual maintenance assessment that is collected from each property owner. As a bonus, each resident property owner gets up to two passes in return. That’s the deal you agreed to, just like I did. Now you want me to pay more so you can pay less.

 

Larry,
Not on my soapbox. To clarify any confusion.
“As a bonus, each resident property owner gets up to two passes in return.”
The single deeded property owner pays the agreed full annual assessment, has the optional benefit of only one membership.
The dual deeded pays the same required fee, has the optional benefit of two memberships.
The benefit associated with payment of the annual assessment should be the same for any property.

“Now you want me to pay more so you can pay less.”
No adjustment in the annual assessment fee amount. Each lot/property pays the same annual assessment fee.
That’s not the issue.
It’s what the benefit is and what it should be…the same for any property.
Lot assessment benefit equation should not factor number of people on the deed. 1=1
1 ($525) = 1 (membership)