Slate is CLEAN: Would you still pick Sun City?

Bill, I understand that putting the toothpaste back in the tube is an insurmountable task. I also acknowledge that rectifying the injustice of the 2003 bylaws will remain an elusive goal.

When I raised this matter during the June member exchange, I was informed by one board member that it was one of the issues under consideration by the bylaws committee.

However, upon reviewing the revisions, I discovered that was not the case. Consequently, I attended the first Town Hall meeting. I had assumed that I was attending a Town Hall meeting specifically to correct the bylaws that did not align with the articles of incorporation. Regardless of the justification for implementing a per-property assessment fee, it does not address the discrepancy between the articles of incorporation, which stipulate equal treatment per member, and the bylaw, which contradicts this principle.

One solution, that should not be considered, but would effectively resolve the situation, is to remove the word “equal” from the articles of incorporation and rephrase it as, “Every member has rights, privileges, and responsibilities.” While this may seem illogical, it would rectify the inequality issue and bring the two documents into harmony.

Indeed, the articles of incorporation were drafted prior to the bylaws, making it an erroneous notion to propose altering the articles. Consequently, the bylaws serve as a derivative of the articles of incorporation, necessitating a modification of the bylaws rather than the articles. I assumed this was the purpose of the bylaws committee. When all is said, done, or written, this particular section of the bylaw will not align with the equality outlined in our articles of incorporation. Even if a judge or a lawyer states 2+2 = 5, it doesn’t make it so.

 

I've heard and read all of the arguments for a very long time. The board was never going to change this in the bylaws re-draft, surprised anyone suggested they would. I have yet to hear one single argument as how to rectify the (perceived?) injustice. Again, not arguing whether it's fair, or not, but how would you propose fixing it?

Apparently a judge or lawyers did agree there wasn't a violation of the Articles by moving to a per property lot assessment and clearly by grandfathering those living here before 2003, they respected the terms and conditions those RCSC members purchased under. And even more clearly, those of you who bought a home after 2003 knew (or more likely should have known) the agreement you signed was based on a lot assessment and not a per person.

I say all of the above only as a matter of clarity, not trying to justify the decision. For my money i wish we would have stayed under a per person, it would have stopped some of the animosity that exists in the community. Lord knows we've had more than our share of late.

 

The Bylaws say if there are three or more Owners, they pay one assessment, get two Memberships, and the third needs to buy a card if they want. The number 3 is arbitrary. Why can't the bylaw read: If there are two or more Owners, they pay one assessment, get one Membership, and the second needs to buy a card if they want. Make the "2nd Owner Card" something much cheaper than a full assessment ($300?). Then do the math based on expected income - since you'll have excess revenue from "2nd Owner Cards" the base assessment will go down. Singles will pay this new reduced base and multi-owners will pay marginally higher (lower base + nominal 2nd). I'm fairly confident Mr. McCurdy could run these real numbers in about 5 minutes. Now: 33,000 homes paying $650 is 21,450,000. Future: 33,000 homes paying $500 + 15,000 2nd owners paying $330 is exactly the same. Single pays $500, and couple (if they choose) pays $830. That seems like a compromise that doesn't violate the Articles.

 

And to answer OP: When I bought 5 years ago, price was right, neighborhood was quiet, facilities were great, and (I found out soon enough) the RCSC Board was corrupt. What's changed? I'm getting more noise from the surrounding cities. Other than that - not much.

 

Jeb,
Great suggestion alternative. Also, if grandfathering worked to create this per property, then grandfather the new property assessment calculation to be successive to the 2003 changes and make the new calculation effective for 2026. This should help alleviate the conundrum of establishing new rates and apportionment. Just an opinion.

 

Your idea of grandfathering singles moving forward reduces that property rev by 50% which will guarantee that all existing property owners will have to make up the difference. The last time this went to court, we members saw our assessment raised to cover the defense costs. This time I’m betting it could be a whopper.

 

I was using the calculation offered by jeb, not a wholesale reduction to per person as a solution. I understand the cost concerns but also try to reconcile the unfair treatment of each group. That is what my comment was about.

 

Could you please clarify which agreement you are referring to? Is it the facilities agreement that I signed? The one that was revised in 2009 and again in 2023, and is currently in effect? That is nearly 17 years of facility agreements. My agreement does not mention that I pay per lot assessment. It does not have the word “Lot” in my facilities agreeemnt. It has the word Land but that refers to the CC&R run with the land.

The one I signed states:

Pursuant to RCSC’s Restated Articles of Incorporation, Corporate Bylaws, and Board Policies, each and every Owner is obligated to pay assessments and fees imposed when due, whether or not Owners occupy the Property or use RCSC facilities.

If you own a two deeded property, you are both owners. Proof: Upon the death of one owner, the widow(er) automatically becomes the sole owner. With two deeded properties, both members become “members in good standing” for $650, while the single deeded property only one member receives the “member in good standing” badge.

Another discrepancy that is seldom discussed is that the members of the two deeded properties are both “members in good standing” for one assessment fee. One flesh and all, as the Bible says. However, if member A’s privileges are revoked for unbecoming conduct, member B retains their privileges. They are combined for payment but separate in punishment, which appears to be a double standard.

Either way, you win, singles get screwed, the Board don’t care and I’m done.

 

Let’s not overlook the voting factor.
The dual deeded, ONE assessment paying “lot,” has TWO votes!
When it comes to voting on anything, as you’ve said, “singles get screwed!”

 

Interesting take Jeb and one that may placate some of the single owners, but they would still not be "equal" but arguably more fair. Turnkey has referenced the facilities agreement where they don't spell out the terms and conditions, while you cited the bylaws where they do specify who gets what. I would suspect/expect a couples rate that went from $650 to $830 (using your example) would trigger a lawsuit by those impacted (obviously the majority of owners).

There is literally no way to "grandfather" anyone under this proposal. I came from a world where grandfathering was a tool to accomplish an end. Most often it resulted in differing classes of those affected and i always disliked when it was used.

So the argument becomes should we make it "more fair" by picking arbitrary dollar amounts to meet the required yearly financial needs of the RCSC? I know from watching Sun City West, that scenario helped increase rates far more quickly than Sun City. Let me be clear, there were other factors, but when the rooftops in SCW has 40% plus single owners (from their data supplied 5 years ago), the revenue derived is less and the rates increase faster because there are less members covering the costs.

I know every time i respond, this is one of those topics that gets folks riled (in spite of their denials). I try and be objective, because i believe the response should be more than; "we won a lawsuit so that's the way it is." I'm seldom viewed as being soft on the board, but this is one of those issues they inherited and any solutions beyond what they are doing will most likely make matters worse not better.

For years i heard the argument Sun City was the only place that had a lot assessment and after a little digging, we know that's not the case.

As turnkey said, i'm done. Clearly nothing we say here matters or will make a difference. My goal is for those reading understand there are two sides to every coin.

 

I know you told me you don't get excited by my answers, your caps and bold tell me otherwise.

And to help make my point, the scenario you shouted about was exactly the terms and conditions (in the bylaws) you purchased your property under.

 

You’re right.

I read, understood and signed the legal Facilities Agreement mandatory obligation to pay RCSC’s annual assessment. No reference to optional “membership” benefits associated.

I naively neglected to locate the RCSC website to deep dive and read the volumes of Corporate documents; Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and Policies, prior to submitting an offer to purchase property in Sun City.

Had I discovered the inequity of the Membership bylaw, would I still have chosen to purchase in Sun City? Yes.

Does that bylaw need correction? Yes.

Do I think every owner is entitled to equal responsibility and rights? Yes, as stated in the Articles of Incorporation.

I’m not attached to being right, but getting it right.

Cookies are done. I am finished.

 

The assessments were not raised because of defense costs as that was covered by D&O insurance. Assessments were increased because they had not been increased for five years and RCSC had $20M in deferred maintenance.

 

The GM expressly stated that that was the reason for the increase. I was was surprised at the time that there wasn’t insurance to cover the defense cost. And going forward, maybe the attorney fees would be covered, but what if RCSC loses? Is that covered?

 

I am glad that the committee is making some changes to the bylaws. I heard some good suggestions from Members when I listened to the first town hall meeting. I am concerned when you say you really don't care about special [Membership] meetings. If it is in the bylaws, and you are on the committee/work group revising them, you should care a great deal!

 

Dave, It doesn't matter how many hours you spent on adapting some of the suggestions. You signed on for that when you volunteered for the committee. What is important is the outcome. How much of the Member's concerns were taken seriously and made it to the adaptations. That's what is important!

 

I think a pertinent question to ask the Board is, "Please give me a few, not one, but a few concrete, real-life examples of a Member motion that does not concern "the business affairs of the corporation". For the life of me, I can't think of one.

 

It wasn't bad enough they covered "business affairs of the corporation" from soup to nuts, then they went into an elaborate scheme to keep members from even having the right to vote on what might leak through at their membership meeting. I attended the first reading and the board member reading the nonsense was clearly perplexed as he mumbled the garbled endless series of steps to arrive at some away from the maddening crowd vote.

Welcome back by the way Janet.

PS. Regarding Larry's comment about the huge increase in 17/18, the GM indeed did tell us all they needed it to cover the potential costs of the lawsuit. Sometime later she tried to walk back the remarks because the suit was settled with very little out of pocket costs to the RCSC. The rest of question about coverage for the corporation, in most instances suits against the org or the board would provide coverage.

 

I think Larry and Dave may have been talking about RCSC assessment increases for different years.

I will try to watch the second town hall meeting while my better half watches football today. I hope the Members' comments were handled more graciously than during the first one.

 

Yes, I would pick Sun City again mostly because I really like my home there. If I didn't, I might be looking elsewhere.