SCPH A bad idea conceived and created in secrecy with the intent to assume control over properties in delinquency of their fees. It was also shamefully hidden from the residents who ARE Sun City. First, from the articles published in the Independent there is not even a definite cost associated with the creation and maintenance of SCPH. In every article the cost to create was “ABOUT” $3000 and the ongoing costs would be “ABOUT” $200 plus $1000 in a checking account. Why are these costs not a definite figure? Also, what are the ongoing costs? Is it for administration, auditing and lawyer fees? If so, that appears to be an “ABOUT” figure also. Second, RCSC is opening itself up for more lawsuits and litigation at the expense of every resident of Sun City. The cost of lawyers and litigation will most definitely be passed on to the residents in the form of increased rec fees but probably disguised as something else. The cost of foreclosures and any resulting winning bids by SCPH will also be passed on to all residents Third. Sun City has survived for 50 years without a holding company. They have not gone broke and according to the articles, they have never foreclosed on a property. That being the case, what is the point of a holding company. By definition, a holding company is formed to assume power and control of its holdings. SCPH wants to assume control of delinquent properties at the expense of all the residents and probably for other undisclosed (secret) reasons. If Sun City doesn’t want to be in the real estate business then a holding company is an unnecessary and unwise expense. If SCPH wins the bid on a delinquent foreclosed home, they are in the real estate business. If they win the bid, are they going to spend major dollars to repair and maintain the purchased home and pay the taxes? If a holding company is created, who audits the holding company? Will there be a list published in a timely manner of properties SCPH is planning on bidding on or will this be secret also? Residents should be made aware of delinquencies the SCPH plans on bidding on to afford them the opportunity to bid on these homes. Will board members (and ex board members) and their families be prohibited from bidding? Who appraises the house and recommends the bid price? If SCPH wins the bid are they going to pay the PIF fee? No one is exempted from paying this fee. If you buy a house in Sun City you are required to pay this fee. Can the delinquent property owner transfer the property without RCSC notification such as a TOD (Transfer On Death). Will the holding company be required to publish a monthly audit and balance sheet so residents can see the effectiveness of the holding company? These and many other questions are prompted before any holding company is formed. The residents of Sun City have a right to know how THEIR money is being spent. This holding company is going to turn out to be a huge expense to residents when a lien will accomplish the same thing. The residents will pay the price in the long term for this holding company especially if it is kept secret and no accountability measures are taken. The SCPH is spending residents money and they should be accountable to the residents. The board again is showing their lack of consideration of all the residents of Sun City. The purchase of the building on Grand Ave is another fine example of the boards over-reach and disregard for the residents. Did they pay the PIF fee on this property? It’s simply amazing that the purchase price was exactly at the limit of resident approval. What are the on-going costs for this building including but not limited to insurance, renovation, upkeep, taxes, security systems, and improvements? This purchase in the long run will cost the residents well over a million dollars just for the sake of catering to clubs like the antique car club (who will probably be the major user). Retrofitting this building for that purpose will cost residents a substantial sum. This purchase was again another secret of the RCSC board. It was only announced AFTER the purchase. A SCPH is a bad idea and one that the residents should have a vote on.
I am against the SCPH. I also don't see anywhere in the documents that say residents should have a vote on it. If it is in there I would like to know where. I don't consider the purchase of the building on Grand over reach. It is certainly not disregard for the residents. In my opinion catering to the clubs is one of the main jobs of the RCSC board along with adding amenities that many residents would like to have. They had the opportunity to buy needed space at a good price. I hope the RCSC board is still looking at other properties since the building on Grand will not be solving the current space problem. I agree that the RCSC board isn't that great on communication. A web site covering what happens at work sessions where residents could comment would be nice.
Interesting comments SCR, most of which i agree with. Couple of points here: It's my understanding the RCSC and SCHOA foreclosed on a property on the lake recently. It was far in arrears to both organizations. No one lived in it and wasn't upside down so the foreclosure netted both organizations the money owed them; with the absentee owner getting the equity above and beyond the debt owed. Obviously there was no for-profit company in existence, so clearly they can take these kinds of actions without the expense of creating one. The second point is the property on Grand Ave wouldn't be covered under the PIF, because it is a commercial venue. No commercial businesses pay it at the point of sale. As far as the RSCS subsidiary corporation paying the PIF should they be the successful bidder, obviously they would be obligated to pay all fees as any winning bidder would be. If hey didn't, lawsuit waiting to happen. The most important point in your myriad of questions is the fact most of the substance regarding the corporation is in the fact little has been stated. It was clear at the board/member exchange they were talking through their hat trying to answer questions on the fly. Days later we saw the letter of explanation trying to regurgitate their rationale, while it was more coherent, it still said nothing that clarified what they were really trying to do. My biggest fear is, based on several things i have heard board members have said is; once they pass this (and they will), they will bury all of the substance of what and why the company exists in executive sessions we will never hear a word about. That's shameful.
G47. You only have the boards word that the building cost 750,000. Do you in fact have documentation to that effect? Probably not, as the transfer has not yet been completed. Even at 750,000, that is understating the final cost of this building. Once transfer is completed, Sun City must board up open windows and doors and then begin the process of renovation, maintenance, retrofitting. This is a costly and time consuming project probably costing well over 100,000. If the cost to renovate, upgrade and retrofit this building has costs associated with it then the final cost of this building will be well over 750,000. Anything over 750,000 requires a vote by the residents. Who appraised and inspected the building to ensure it is up to code and determined what modifications have to be made? Who is going to do the demolition and other work required to get this building ready for occupancy? I have thoughts on this and will is pound on that if anyone is interested. Again, it seems very odd that the building was purchased for the exact amount that doesn't require resident approval. Even disregarding any demo, renovation and improvements, there are closing closts and taxes on this site that probably have not been included in the 750,000.
The sale of said property will appear on county tax roles so you can check it there in the coming months SCR. As noted in another thread or perhaps at the member/exchange any additional costs will in all likelihood become PIF expenditures. As long as they have cash in hand, they aren't incurring indebtedness and hence no need to vote the resident population.
I don't think anyone would think the final cost of the building is $750,000. The property as is cost $750,000. Depending on who gets it and what they need to do the final cost could approach $1,750,000. I would think the work will be put out for bids. I really don't understand what you are getting at here.
I think SCR is trying to say the board knowingly avoided having to have a vote by the community by pricing the property at $750,000. I'm not speaking for SCR, this is just how I interpret the discussion.
So let's clarify a couple of things here so everyone is working from the same playbook. The highest order of documents for the RCSC are the Articles of Incorporation. Next comes the By-Laws and the the Rules and Regulations. That last two cannot be in contrast with the Articles of Incorporation. One of the great misunderstandings in Sun City is regarding the $750,000 figure. Partly due to ARS and her constant chirping, there's been volumes of misinformation. Here's the exact language from Article X of the Articles of Incorporation: Article X The highest amount of indebtedness or liability, direct or contingent, to which the Corporation may at any time subject itself shall be limited to $750,000 or any greater amount which may be authorized by three-fourths (3/4) of the Members present at a duly called and noticed meeting of the membership, or in such amounts as may be authorized by the Arizona Corporation Commission. In essence, it was written that way to insure the RSCS could not go into debt for $750,000 or more without a vote by the residents. No one anticipated they would have millions of dollars of cash on hand to pay for buying, remodeling or rebuilding the amenities, but in that we do, we incur no debt, hence no vote necessary. The second item from the Articles of Incorporation that becomes relevant in this discussion is in Article VII, #7 that reads: 7. The Corporation shall not convey any substantial part of its assets, or any real property of assessed value for tax purposes exceeding $50,000, without affirmative vote of a majority of its membership entitled to vote thereon. The argument being if the RCSC were to buy a property in foreclosure and then went to sell it and was valued at more than $50,000, they would need a vote of the residents to do so. Of course their statement was they wouldn't bid more than $1 over what the RCSC was owed, so how they would ever win a bid is almost laughable. This is where it would be helpful for the RCSc to show us data regarding delinquencies, perhaps then we would better understand what they are doing. For those interested, corporate documents are available on the RCSC website here.
So if this dummy holding company was formed....wouldn't this new corporation be bidding and then hold title upon foreclosure?? Wouldn't this make the $50,000 issue moot?
Exactly aggie and that's apparently why they claim they need this for-profit company. My concern is several fold; the most significant is whether this action by the board would somehow give merit to the lawsuit. Between the appearance of trying to subvert the Articles of Incorporation and the fact it appears we are feeding into ARS's argument the RCSC is foreclosure happy, could this action become the tipping point to allow the suit to go forward?
In reply to Emily I think Bill is right. Land is very expensive. The building currently there will require extensive renovation to bring it up to code and make it acceptable for whatever use it is destined for. However, the land itself is probably more valuable as all the infrastructure is already there and there is more than ample parking.
It is my understanding the newly formed organization's documents are now filed on the AZ website and folks can get a good reading on the purpose of this company (sorry, no longer an organization). In fact, rumor has it they had them already drawn up when at the last board meeting, but rather than share them with us, just voted it through. If that's the case...transparency my ass.
Don't know if anyone noticed, but the property has been completely fenced off already. That usuully means that work is about to begin.
If they have started work and don't even allude to what's being built they are overstepping their overstepping.
They have started clean up and there is temporary fencing. The plan was to have a committee to develop what the property is to be used for. The clean up is necessary either way and i suspect permanent fencing and gates will be the next order of business. Perhaps someone on the committee can fill us in.
The temporary fencing has been installed for security and insurance purposes. The Adhoc Commiittee is still taking member applications which ends the last week of August. The RCSC Board officers, committee chair and co-chair will be making the decision who is picked for the committee from all the applicants after the end of August. At some designated date the Ad Hoc committee meetings will commence with end goal being the submission clubs etc that meet all of the qualifications and would work well in that location. I would imagine that will be quite a task with unknown challenges yet to be seen. Matching up space with clubs will be an interesting architectural feat with parking requirements to match. At some point way down the road then the money issues will come into play and will create a whole lost of conversation. This Grand Avenue project will feed this Sun City discussion site for many years to come. The intent of this posting with more postings to come is to share accurate information as I understand and interpret it as a member of the RCSC Board of Directors. Please remember there are 9 directors and on any given day there could be 9 different interpretations on any given topic but at least you have something to work with.
I'm not a Sun City resident yet, but plan to be in a couple of years. I monitor this board regularly to get a feel of what is happening in my future neighborhood. I have served on our HOA board here in CO so I understand how busy and demanding that position can get. So my hat goes off to those that are willing to serve on the BOD. I will say though that it seems to be the rare occasion that a Sun City board member posts on this message board to provide information. As a current outsider still looking at other alternatives I would sure like to see more open communications from the BOD. My current HOA is under 1,000 homes so a lot smaller, but the idea remains the same. we have found the key to residents happiness is open dialog. That doesn't mean we always all agree, it just means the board appears to actually listen and openly communicate with the residents. I guess what I am trying to say is bravo for the open update. Not being there I don't understand the details, but it is fun to stay informed.
Thank you BruceW for your response and comments. It is my hope that more RCSC Directors will start responding to concerns shown on this site. BPearson is correct in one of his previous postings whereby he basically states that the failure to communicate can create a lot of negative suspicions which can create a life of there own. I know the Board and Management do a lot to communicate using established systems plus the monthly Member/Board Exchange but sometimes waiting for that to occur turns concerns into resentment, shouting matches and the like. Plus not every member participates in the meetings or receives email info. It is my hope that all the directors will respond with proper and correct information......besides it is always more fun to watch the directors fight and argue with one another than it is to watch the membership fight and argue with the directors.
Thanks for posting Gary. As you may have noted, i'm not overly pleased by decisions by the RCSC of late and frankly many of the ones while i was on the board. The most obvious was the dismantling of the Long Range Planning Committee and the reckless (IMHO) overspending by the board regarding the golf courses (as we approach 40 million dollars in a sport that is struggling to hold their own). Worse yet, witness the anger from the golfers regarding the outcomes on those courses and one quickly understands the foolishness of not having a LRPC. When the staff and board become the sole decision makes, you live with the consequences and in this case, it's come back to bite you. But that's yesterday's news. Moving forward, this board needs to permanently reinstate the LRPC, start communicating better and more openly and give serious consideration to open work sessions. I was always in favor of those items as well as using the internet for two-way conversations. Again, thanks for the information, it's a start.
I saw a quote the other day, don't recall the author. Seems to me any HOA is a team of folks with a common goal to keep their neighborhood attractive and relevant, so it seems to fit. "A team is not a group of people who work together. A team is a group of people who trust each other."
