So ALL of the PIF projects are on hold

I fully agree with BP -- there should be little to fear from Title 33. Sure, it will require some policy and operational changes and, as with any changes in the rules, there will be things we may wish were different. But knowing that many thousands of communities throughout Arizona have functioned under these statutes for over 20 years should allay most fears.

For those unfamiliar with Title 33, here's links to the statutes...

Also, the following is a list of related pending legislation so far in 2017...

 

I don't agree that that is the question. But I won't belabor the point. I never had a problem with the PIF. And I was told the amount on my contract. Maybe they meant the amount is not spelled out in the by-laws? If so, that's picky/silly because everyone knows fees of any type increase over years.

I'm certainly not afraid of Title 33. Quite the opposite...I read it all and it sounds as if it contains protections for the community. I'm not sure of the negatives except the community then has less control to think outside the box, so to speak. But history shows the community has minimal control at this point. It's all in the hand of the current decisions of the board. That should be a positive aspect because a voluntary board, made of member of the community who donate their time, should want the best for the community. It hasn't always panned out that way. The excessive expenditures on golf has demonstrated that it frequently comes down to those two nasty words: special interests. Not sure Title 33 would help special interest issues, but it might.

And thanks IC for taking the time to post those links.

 

We've been down this road before C, but lets chat. Would it make any difference to you if every household in Sun City paid the full rate? For those new to the discussion, in 2003 the RCSC "grandfathered " all existing owners to a single payer system. For example, 1 owner, 1 half of the fee. 2 owners, full fee.

The challenge was creating budgets where income fluctuated dramatically based on whether a spouse died or whether a good number of the 2000 home sales per year were sold to singles or couples.

It was one of the reasons i ran for the board, because i was troubled by how the board in 2008 changed the grandfathering clause passed in 2003, but that's yesterdays news.

I guess the best argument i heard for it was comparing it to property taxes. Doesn't matter if there's 1 person in the house or 11, the tax you pay is the same. Again, the logic is simple; the county/state needs a consistent revenue stream and basing it on occupants falls far short on consistency.

Which brings me full circle to the question: If every home in Sun City (27,500 or so) were paying the full property assessment, would it be easier to accept? In conjunction with that, what if the RCSC were to find a way to allocate punch cards as needed to single occupant owners and a second card for another person living in the home (though not on the deed), would it be more acceptable?

 

But it's not property tax, so that's a false equivalence. It's recreation useage. Isn't it always expained that we pay regardless if we use the facilities or not? And the R stands for recreation. I would only be happy if all is equal, however it is that's equal. I think the farest is for each person to pay. The idea that that it's convenient to know the exact income each year is just that. Convenience. Other communities manage to function with the individual payments. I would be okay with punch cards as second choice but not just for a second person living in the house. A puch card to use for my guests if no second person lives there. Basically just give me what I pay for.

 

Not to be snarky C, but the fees you pay are called "property assessments." Everyone used to call them rec fees, but they are in fact an assessment paid on the property you own in the community.

Think about it this way, whether you live here or not, when you buy-in you pay the assessment.

To make an even stronger argument, we can look back over the years and you will find any number of times people bought into Sun City and argued they didn't use the facilities, hence they should pay nothing towards them. They often suggested user fees rather than everyone paying for the amenities. Thankfully, they never made headway, because that would have changed the entire concept behind the community.

However, if you follow their logic (and yours), why should they have to pay for never using anything when a single person could be using the clubs, going to the free shows and enjoying the amenities? How is that fair?

Obviously i'm being caustic about the entire premise because the answer is always the same: When you buy into Sun City you sign a facilities agreement whereby you agree to the terms and conditions contained within. Simple enough; if you don't like the terms, don't buy here. Or, if you do buy, recognize when you move here you have every right to try and change it to what you think is fair or right. And so you know, this is an issue that has bounced back and forth several times in the past 56 years, usually based on owners within the community being able to convince others what is more fair or right.

 

Yes, I was told about the fees when I moved in, but to be fair, nowhere did it say that some singles pay a single fee and some pay more. So to keep pointing that out is leaving out those facts. I doubt searching could have easily turned up that info. I have also paid property tax to schools my nonexistent children never used, but no place have some paid full and some half for it. That I know of anyway. Justify as you will but as I said in the start...it will always seem unfair to me. And please no need really to point out how life is unfair.

 

I wouldn't point out life is unfair; it always just is what it is. But, i did start the discussion out by asking if everyone paid the "lot assessment" at the full rate if it would be more acceptable and you said no. Any ability to change anything has to start somewhere.

It would be interesting to see how many of the communities out there have a per person fee compared to a pure lot assessment payment. 55 Places used to show costs, but they said because it changed yearly it was impossible to stay current.
And while you suggested it was a matter of convenience to do that, the bigger issue is the significant revenue it generates when every household pays a fixed rate. My point was by getting rid of the grandfathering, it would in all likelihood lower the yearly costs. Unfortunately there would be some older widowers who would get pummeled with a massive increase. Of course knowing the impact would be a starting point. My guess is the RCSC is at around the 20 to 30% range of those grandfathered and certainly not all of those protected are widowed or unable to afford to pay. In my opinion, these are the kinds of issues a true long range planning committee could be studying as they prepare for the next 25 to 50 years.

 

Where did I say no? I didn't, in fact I said yes. I only want it equal. Here is what I said "I would only be happy if all is equal, however it is, that's equal. I think the most fair is for each person to pay.... I would be okay with punch cards as second choice but not just for a second person living in the house. A punch card to use for my guests if no second person lives there. Basically just give me what I pay for."

 

I'm a believer in the rule of law -- when I read the AOI and BLs before buying I viewed them as the laws governing the conduct of the RCSC and, knowing State law essentially said they must be followed, I expected their spirit to be upheld as time passed. Instead, many of those rules were ignored, at least in my eyes. The cost of everything the RCSC is involved with, good or bad, is passed on to we members. Regardless of our due diligence prior to purchasing, once we sign we are stuck with whatever the RCSC decides to do -- and hence, the costs associated with it. Those that can least afford it, whether it's national/state/local government or the RCSC (which actually functions much like a governmental entity), are always be the ones most affected, and I feel sorry for them too because I'm pretty close to being one of them.

While I'm personally a fiscal conservative, I'm far from a tightwad. I believe the RCSC overstepped their bounds, both fiscally and legally. As long as members avoid getting involved/expect someone else to be their activist the situation will be one sided in favor of the RCSC Corporation and parochial interests. While I didn't support the lawsuit, I'm not sorry it was filed. I guess many see the lawsuit as just another outburst in ARS's years of whining. I see it as much more than that. Beyond her minutiae, there are issues that need resolution -- like how much money the board can commit us to fund without asking us, what rules they can change without our agreement, transparency, etc. A court ruling on these issues in favor of the plaintif will cost the community almost nothing, yet would give control back to the members, which has always been the intent of the AOI and early BLs as far as I can see.

 

Now I'm confused IC. I thought your prior position said if the plaintiffs wins it could cost the community (RCSC) a lot and that is the reason PIFs are on hold?

 

I said "could" as a worst case regarding a PIF ruling, but my statement

was not about the PIF -- it was referring to other lawsuit issues, like quorum, title 33, requiring member approval to spend more than $750K, etc. Sorry for any confusion.

Speaking of the $750K -- I suspect the $750K number has been in the AOI's almost from the beginning. Personally, I think it is inadequate in today's times due to inflation. As I recall the $750K became a big issue when the RCSC spent $20-mil to demolish and build a new Fairway -- all w/o member approval. $750K should be somewhere in the $4-5 mil range if inflated to today's dollars. The real question is whether spending 20-million and 50-million should require membership approval? Regardless of when the RCSC taps our pockets for the money (ie, PIF, increased or special assessment, etc.) WE members pay for it. Personally, I want more of a say in large magnitude expenditures than relying on electing board members?

 

It's an interesting discussion IC; is there a point where the RCSC should be voting improvements? I have argued one of the reasons the PIF was created to avoid getting into actual votes. The Articles say the board cannot take on indebtedness of 750K without a vote of the members, so when they have cash in hand, there is no debt.

The bigger problem is if they are forced to vote on improvements, would anything ever pass? Think about Fairway; 16 million dollars and less than a third of the residents live in Phase 1. Lord knows a good share of those would vote against it. Or how about the golf courses? While i lament the 40-50 million committed to them, clearly they needed some investment. We know less than 20% of the population golfs so who would cast a vote in favor of spending any money on them?

No easy task, but the good news is any expenditures from PIF come from people buying homes here, not from annual lot assessments. That is exactly how the Del E Webb Development Corp (DEVCO) paid for the amenities they built and deeded to us.

My argument has always been to have a long range planning committee of residents and Town Hall meetings to engage people on levels so we insure the community both understands the need and reason why, and get as much buy-in as possible.

Hell, i was crazed when the board voted to remove the LRPC but i alas, i was just one vote. The majority of the board supported the GM's wish to get rid of it.

I think the board has taken several good first steps in the past couple of months. Of course with the lawsuit headed to trial, who knows what that case will bring?

 

Curious what did the board say as the reasons they wanted to get rid of the LRPC? The points you make are valid BP on the community voting. Could there be a happy medium between everyone voting and only the board voting? Maybe an LRPC could have a real say in the very largest expenditures, instead of putting it to a community vote. Not sure how that would be allowed but it would be a middle ground at least.

 

This is just part of the circular logic and excuses I've heard for as long as I've lived here. We can't vote because the elder curmudgeons won't vote for anything -- the non-golfers won't vote for golf expenditures -- we can't reduce the number of golf courses because they'd revert to Del Web -- yada yada yada. The whole mess is constipated by mostly minority groups and management budget defenders. Has anyone actually looked into petitioning the court to remove the deed restrictions on any of our golf courses (one course should be easy since it was the RCSC, not Del Webb, that put that restriction in place, I believe)? The whole situation is fraught with "we can't" logic that is likely not as sacred as everyone believes. Meanwhile we go merrily along raising the PIF, raising the assessments, and building towers to the future. Yet there isn't a single point of evidence that suggests the RCSC is or isn't doing what the majority of members want. The LRPC did solicit input, but that's just another example of responding to squeaky wheels, albeit much better than nothing. The sacred cow of "it will cost too much to do a community survey to find out what the members want" is simply misguided. Who in their right mind believes it wouldn't be prudent for the RCSC to spend 50K on a competent survey before they spend 50-mil on enhanced golf courses or rec centers or whatever. Instead we're continuing to maintain and enhance things that are declining in interest (eg, golf) and ignoring things that are gaining in popularity. How long can that continue. Isn't it more fiscally sound to enhance what we need and re-purpose what we don't.

As to the PIF, it's just a slight of hand in my book. It's essentially nothing more than a pre-paid assessment -- $3500 up front = $233 added to the assessment over a 15-year ownership -- pay me now or pay me later. Of course, the upfront PIF allows the RCSC to double and triple dip members as they move the deeds to trusts, etc., so I understand why the powers that be like it better. But to believe it isn't money paid by we owners is purely "Fake News" to me.

 

I only reprinted the last part of your response, but i will touch on the first paragraph as well. We agree on most things IC, but we are far afield on this one. The history of the community is rife with the battles over expenditures, some good, some bad. And the simple reality is the squeaky wheel almost always gets the grease. The problem with doing away with the LRPC has become we no longer have that buffer, now we have just the board doing what it wants (usually with a push from the GM). For the record, i'm not opposed to the survey, but i more favor the Town Hall approach. Best of all would be a true long range planning committee with solid recommendations floated before the rest of the community.

To the bigger argument, the PIF saved Sun City. Let me repeat more clearly; without the PIF, Sun City would have fallen into complete and utter disrepair. The only other option would have been to go to residents and vote on assessments to pay for say Fairway. Think that one would have passed if owners would have been asked to pay for a $700 bill on top of their yearly lot assessment?

And here's where we really disagree: Sun City averages 2000 plus home sales per year. While there are some payments made from trusts and deeds moving within families, it's less than 10% of the yearly transactions. There is some double dipping from the flipping game, but they factor that into the equation of the flip. And there are some who own multiple properties and they pay the PIF even if they have already paid it; again, factored into the cost of renting the unit.

The point being, the vast majority of the home sales are to people who plan on making Sun City their home. The buy-in is high but the reality is it most assuredly has not slowed home sales in the community in any way shape of form (last year was one kick-ass year, in a large part due to KHov). Some argue the seller eats the PIF, but that's only when a home is overpriced and the buyer negotiates it into the sale price.

Here is where we do agree: The RCSC has to do a better job of involving the community in how and what we use the PIF for. I didn't make it to the 3 open meetings on the Grand Ave properties but i hear there was decent crowds and lots of ideas floated. Like i say, that's a start.

 

As far as the PIF goes from the viewpoint of someone that is going to buy in Sun City in the next year or two, the PIF is no big deal IMHO. Reason being is exactly as Bill pointed out, the facilities in Sun City are top notch and up to date. I can't imagine what the rec centers would look like if they were still the buildings from the 60s. Also, if there was no PIF I would wonder where the cash would come from to upgrade the facilities... assessments are the worst unexpected expense to impose on a retiree. Without the PIF I would not likely be looking to buy in Sun City.
One of the things that impressed my wife as I was trying to convince her to move to the southwest heat was the fact that the rec centers looked so nice, she was expecting to see old aging buildings, but when she saw the Bell center she was truly impressed. PIF is a good thing and at $3500 it is still a relatively good bargain. I am looking forward to paying it to keep the community looking great and not have to worry about an assessment down the road. Just MHO.

Agree with everyone about the LRPC, surveys, town halls, etc. and as Bill said, "solid recommendations floated before the rest of the community". Having 9 decide what is best for the rest of the community is great, but only if the 9 are willing to listen to what the community really wants. However the ideas need to be solid recommendations that have been run by the community and have a decent percentage buy in. At least then the board would have all the facts before they make capital expenditures.

 

One reason many of us might not be as bothered by the PIF is when we buy in we have more money. Some are still working or have just sold a home. It's the assessment that could be an issue after years of retirement, the cost of it goes up and the income for most does not.

Occasionally I bring up the fact that I almost bought into the Sun City Center near Tampa. I followed them online (they had all the board meeting videoed and online years ago) and read the newsletter trying to learn about the community. It's about 17,000 residents, built in 1961. They have one rec center if I recall correctly. There is another community just across the main drag that is similar in size but gated and they have a rec center too. Very few things are shared between communities

Anyway, they had planned to spend a bunch of money to upgrade the rec center and area around it. They did not have money in the bank for it so they planned to take a sizable loan. The community was not happy. So they did have a paid community survey for it...I was even able to read that. They might have had more than one, I forget. The community voted to do a lesser upgrade. So it can happen. FYI, they had less money in the bank because their PIF is half of ours and their annual is less too. When I started looking at SC, AZ I was surprised by the higher fees. I also wondered if we really needed all of the rec centers, since that community had one. I haven't had the opportunity to use ours, so I don't know the answer to how crowded they are.

 

I agree with Cynthia that most of us have more money when we purchase b/c we've just sold a home of higher value, or can essentially roll it into a mortgage, etc. I don't have a better idea than the PIF. I would have preferred that an affordable extra assessment had been levied from the very beginning of SC and invested for future renovations and upgrades rather than playing catch-up now via the PIF. And I know Bill will say the members back then wouldn't stand for it. Sadly, we don't have a choice now. Expenditures from the PIF most always result in raises in future member assessments to cover the additional costs to maintain the new buildings, etc. Granted, it's not universally true, nonetheless I'm not holding my breath expecting my assessment to drop as a result of a PIF expenditure that saves water on a golf course, produces electricity on rooftops, etc. Isn't this enough reason for members to need to approve PIF expenditures.

Where I disagree is when people try to say the PIF isn't paid by members, that it's paid by the buyer, so why do members care. Technically I guess they are correct -- there's a day or so after you pay before technically you're a member. Really ? It will always be a pre-paid assessment to me. And I care b/c I might want to move to a bigger/smaller property within SC and face paying the PIF again. I care b/c it's an unequal tax. I care b/c it will eventually affect property values if it isn't constrained somehow. I see it a lot like a college kid's credit card -- they spend whatever they want and mom/dad pay. Eventually they spend too much and mom/dad put their foot down. Numbers in the $40-mil range seem like a put your foot down moment to me. So was the $20-mil for Fairway -- its seeds of dissent caused many to support ARS and eventually the lawsuit.

Bill is right, historically residents fought tooth and nail over assessments and spending money for things they personally didn't see a need for. Some, voted no on everything. Others were conservative. Still others were spendthrifts and fought to spend for the moon. And a lot didn't participate at all. I'm ok with that b/c it's fair and democratic. I think we all agree the community is better when more get involved -- that way the majority gets to prevail. Usually, if your voice isn't heard you won't participate. Maybe that's why so few participate now -- they feel the RCSC isn't listening, that it's futile.

And Bill, if I gave you the impression I didn't support the LRPC I didn't mean to. I certainly agree the LRPC did a better job of factoring in recreational trends and member input, and I fully support it's return. In my opinion, it wasn't completely connected to the pulse of many factions within the community, particularly those with ideas that deviated from the historical norms. There were a lot of parochial forces at play sometimes, and still are. What I did dis was nothing getting done b/c of all the "can't do" factions, with or without the LRPC. We're a society staring social media, robotics, self driving cars, virtual reality, etc in the face... what's the plan? We're a society with a shrinking middle class where more and more people are renting than buy (30% of the houses on my street are rentals) -- what's the plan. Etc. I don't sense the status quo is enough, nor is the RCSC's typical reactionary response. We need LRP if SC is going to survive another 50-years, and it needs to address more than facilities, it needs to address how the RCSC operates. We desperately need to stop hiding behind "we can't" and "that's the way we've always done it" and consider approaches that will transition to the future. I hate to say drain the swamp, but...

Here's a thought -- if member approval was required to proceed with major expenditures, might the RCSC become more involved in community building if they needed to get their plans member approved? That could be a good thing. As it stands today, the RCSC is motivated to avoid member involvement -- and why not, they can charge whatever the want as PIF and spend whatever they want of that PIF, essentially unfettered, except for keeping up appearances. Member involvement often seems to be more of a PITA to them than a source of ideas and knowledge. Day to day they react to member complaints, but their LRP is pretty invisible to most of the community until they surprise us with their plan for what we need.

 

Did I miss that people think the PIF isn't paid for by members? That makes me laugh. Of course a buyer is a member, but it is a bit of a strong arm to make the buyer pay "if you don't like the idea of PIF don't buy here." You have to take it in stride as a condition, like many other buying fees. It could become an issue to future sales depending on the future state of the economy and choices of future buyers. I have read millinneals are more set on renting than buying. At some point it would be good to save more and spend less.

 

All good points guys (gender neutral) and clearly we agree more than we disagree. I've never been a proponent of the "that's the way we always do it" defense...simply lame. I've always believed almost anything is possible; but it's never possible when people stay home and **** and moan. It takes action and commitment and planning and pushing. And when all that comes together, you need some dumb-chit luck too.

Here's the scary aspect of my 3 years on the board...we are having a better more open discourse than we ever did locked behind closed doors in work sessions. The changes we will be facing are staggering and who knows the impact on the community?

That's exactly why i want the RCSC to morph into a broader approach style democracy where we tap into the remarkable talent pool living here.

I know that's scary for some who like the idea of a small governance mentality, but there's too much at stake to leave it to a few.

Think i'm wrong? Consider this: When I was on the board we looked at the Lakes Club, 38,000 sq feet smack dab on View Point Lake. We could have bought it but there was an issue of the land lease with the Sun Health Foundation. It would have taken about 6 million dollars to buy and renovate. My idea was to take all of that property between the Lakes Club and Lake View Rec Center and create a massive community center, administrative setting, park area, dozens of card rooms, class rooms and a first class meeting space.

Here's the kicker; i don't know if it was a good idea or a bad one. I wanted to float the concept in front of the community, but i was told to keep the possible purchase quiet. In the end we lost it as the owners rented it to another nursing school. And the rest of the story became all golf, all the time.

To me it was exactly the kind of community intervention that would have helped shape our future, or got me off another crazy idea that made sense only to me.

Here we sit 3 year later, no LRPC, a shotgun approach to future plans and no clear path as to what we do going forward. Hopefully this new board will come to grips with the evolution we will be facing, but to do that would mean reconstructing the LRPC with some clear goals and objectives.