Slate is CLEAN: Would you still pick Sun City?

I am the sole person on my property deed in Arizona. I pay the $650 property assessment and my better half pays the $275 (?) Privilege Card. It would actually cost us more to go to the two person fee because we would each have to pay the $650. It really doesn't matter to me because I consider our assessment fees very low for the amenities we enjoy. However, I do not like inequities and I think this is one. I believe it was Director Kise that said ANCA doesn't allow it, but Sun City West assesses each person. I would just like clarification on it.

 

To answer the question bluntly, I think any snowbird would think twice if they knew about our governance.

 

Actually the GM was disingenuous by not mentioning the D&O coverage and amount that the RCSC had at the time to the members.

 

I’m not certain that is what would happen if assessments were equal per member. Your significant other is not part of the equation as he/she is not on the deed and would be treated the same as a renter.

According to statistics from World Population, Sun City’s population during the 2020 census was 38,888, which has decreased by 2.7 percent to 37,810 in 2025. The marital status of Sun City is 53.2 percent married and 46.8 percent single, comprising 18.2% widowed, 19.9% divorced, .7% separated, and 8% never married. The percentages don’t really matter as long as the assessment is charged equally per member. I was simply giving some statistics of our population according to the Word Population Website.

Although the population is 37,810, we are not certain how many are owners, how many are renters, and how many live with an owner in those properties. However, every rented home is also owned by someone who pays the assessment. Sun City should have the exact numbers.

I am not going to state with absolute certainty that I have the exact number of members living at each property, so please do not assume I have. However, let me take some liberties, as others have done on TOSC, and use the figures from the website.

If the population is 37,810, there are 20,115 married (53.2 percent) and 17,695 single (46.8 percent) for the total of the population (37,810). We know some of the properties are rented and/or privilege card holders living with a deeded owner, as in your situation.

Let’s assume the GM needs $18,000,000. She/he would take the budget amount and divide it by the deeded owners/members equally. In this example, the cost per member would be approximately $476. If the privilege card is based on half the cost of the member card, it would be $238. In this example you would not be paying $650 each. As the only deeded owner you would pay $476 and your better half, as you put it, would pay $238.

I know some will argue that counting rooftops is easier than counting members, and it is, but the RCSC should know how many deeded owners and privilege card holders they have at any given time. If the number fluctuates too much from year to year, they could use a 5-year average. Alternatively, they could ask SCW how they do it.

 

Why does RCSC only charge half-price, $325 in 2025, for privilege cards giving full access to everything a Member pays $650, excluding voting rights?

Are two opportunities to vote really valued at $325??

Think of the lost revenue being ignored.

RCSC needs to charge everyone equally.

 

Your suggestion to use a five year average is very reasonable and one that I have suggested many times. I think it is unfair to owners who have lost their spouse, as well as any Social Security, pension, health benefits, etc when the spouse died, to have to continue paying as though two people are still living under that rooftop.

I believe the rationale that it helps with budgeting is overrated.

 

Actually according to the current budget of $29.888M, using your math of deeded would equate to $790 per member if there was no other revenue for operating income. Charging a quarter for a privilege card to a person living with you whatever the marital status and not on the deed is not feasible as it creates a special class. What if an adult child is not on the deed and lives with the member, do they pay full privilege card fee because they do not qualify for half based on marital status? Who is going to keep track of these comings and goings and how?

TK26, I appreciate young your thinking on the matter but I fail to see how this would benefit the RCSC financial situation.

 

RCSC already has two “special classes,” unequally charged annual assessment fee:

Dual deeded: $650= Two Memberships
Single deeded $650= One Membership

 

Unfortunately, YKW is so busy creating a reality distortion field that fits his ego he loses total sight of the point. And this guy was a principal drafter of the revised bylaws???

 

Nope, the assessment is per property, membership is defined that there may be many owners, think LLCs, only two qualified owners is the maximum of members. They are not unequally charged since it is per property per the facilities agreement which all property owners sign and all property owners are charge the same, hence no special classes. My advice when purchasing, read the contract or have your attorney read it and explain to you your obligations.

 

The issue is the unequal optional benefit given upon paying the mandatory annual assessment!

 

John,
Y

John, you never cease to amaze me with your lying, now I was the principal drafter of the by laws which is demonstratably false. Obviously you dwell in the basement of the Dept. of making stuff up along with practicing psychiatry without a license. I don’t know what your problem is other than you portray yourself as a savior of SC through mission statements, values statement and the unending quest for data. I guess your feelings were hurt on your year on the Board. Nothing I can do about that,
Question, when was the last revision of the Articles and what does Article III say in its entirety? Hopefully you will answer this question since you have not answered any of my other questions.

 

The Facilities Agreement I signed was revised in 2009 and revised again in 2023. The current agreement we are signing in 2025 uses the same verbiage as the previous revisions. With the exception of the revision date, the Facilities Agreements are identical and have been in effect for nearly 17 years. I reviewed the Facilities Agreement and would appreciate your assistance in understanding the section titled “Agreed Facts.” I have underlined the sections that stand out to me.

The Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (“CC&Rs” or “Declarations” run with the land and are binding on all persons owning said Property and require each Owner to execute a Facilities Agreement in favor of RCSC, including an obligation to pay assessments and fees imposed. Each Owner and all persons residing on said Property, shall abide by the RCSC Articles of Incorporation, Corporate Bylaws, Board Policies and any and all other rules and regulations of the corporation.

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.

I observe that the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) run with the land, but I also note that each and every owner is obligated to pay assessments and fees imposed. If two individuals are listed on the deed, they are each owners and as such each are obligated to pay. Additionally, the phrase “ each and every owner” appears to strengthen the argument. Why not simply state that each owner or every owner is obligated to pay? Why use the phrase “each and every owner is obligated to pay”? I am not attempting to be argumentative; I genuinely desire to understand the rationale behind the phrase “each and every owner is required to pay.”

The facilities agreement is a legal document and uses the word owner as we are not members at the time of purchase but at the closing and subsequently receiving your member card. If it was written to “members” it would read: Pursuant to RCSC’s Restated Articles of Incorporation, Corporate Bylaws, and Board Policies, each and every Member is obligated to pay assessments and fees imposed when due, whether or not Members occupy the Property or use RCSC facilities.

Furthermore, I have gained a deeper understanding of several other aspects of the assessment fee structure. First, this bylaw would not have been established if the board in 2003 had not enacted a bylaw that infringed upon the AOI’s principle of “equality of responsibility.” Second, a lawsuit judgment would not have been issued if the 2003 board had not violated the AOI’s “equality of responsibility.” Third, the judgment granted the RCSC the authority to impose a per-property assessment, but it did not compel them to do so. Fourth, the assessment fee will remain unchanged because there are not enough individuals voicing their concerns about it. Finally, when all is written and the ink is dry on the new bylaws, we will still have a 22-year-old bylaw that is in opposition to the equality of our rights, privileges, and the responsibility we are subject(ed) to pay per “member” in the AOI. Articles of Incorporation 8:5 clearly state that the responsibility we are subject(ed) to is per member and not per property. No amount of double speak can alter that fact. The AOI supersedes and precedes the bylaws and AOI 8:3 states the Board can not write bylaws that violate the Articles. Well, obviously they can, but they are not allowed to.

 

Good catch, turnkey!

 

Well Dave,

No one else is saying anything about the bylaws and you seem to "know" everything. I think the LRP did a good job on the Mission, Vision and Values statement. But that is just one man's opinion. Care to tell the class what the material noncompliance with the ANCA was about?


John

 

In spite of not caring for Ronald Reagan, I would like to quote him, “there you go again.” I seem to know everything. You know that is just another insult towards me and my 40+ career of trying to help and educate rather than being a critical nobody. That said John, you seem to be on some sort of revenge tour from the cheap seats. If the bylaws upset you so much, run for the Board again as I believe you still have five years of eligibility left. Put your angst where your mouth is located.
A question for you, we’re you chair or co-chair of LRP the year the MV&V was created because this sort of thing never cropped up previously and was it your idea for this? Just asking.

 

I was chair. But the members did all of the heavy thought work. Thanks to them. Sorry to see you are sinking to such a low level...

 

Yup. I'd choose Sun City all over again. I've looked for what matters...great weather, no natural disasters, few if any bugs (mosquito's), low cost of living, clean, safe, stuff to do. Here's where I came up with. Sun City, and Henderson, Nevada. Thats about it. It's not perfect here, but very few places come close.

 

Rich, my man, good to see you brother.
D

 

Always good to be seen Geoffrey!