Upcoming Budget Meetings

Well it's out, proposed annual fee increases just released by the RCSC.... By 2030 $791 annual fee, $2500 CIF and $6000 PIF. Sun City is about to get much more expensive both in the buy-in and annual fees, I think these meetings will be well attended. Hopefully we will have enough funds to fix all of the moldy (mouldy for Canadians) pools we keep hearing about!

 

Good luck with that craziness. People will want to pay that kind of money for 60+ year old homes, no shopping no restaurants.

 

Lets not get ahead of ourselves. Budgets are only approved one year at a time.

Who knows what future budgets may hold, but they will be individually addressed one year at a time.

We can worry about 2026 once we see how things go in 2025!

 

Well, well! Some numbers have appeared. My only question pertains to what all this money will be spent on. Revenue vrs. Spending? At least 10 years out. From what I gathered after attending a budget meeting this summer, the answer is mostly golf.

I might be wrong with my conclusion, but a simple one or two page “revenue vrs. spending” chart covering 10 years might set me straight. Just theorizing‼️

 

My hope is that this presentation is positive leaning. In my short time on the Board I really tried to encourage our leaders to be transparent and detailed to convey a firm sense of what members get for their money. It really is an exceptional value and I recognize that some members have strained financial resources. That is why I always thought the Sun City Foundation is so important. Golf has always been a subject of great contention. However, in terms of member activity hours it is by far and away the number one activity in Sun City. My own personal opinion is that golf rates and member discounts should be market based. I am encouraged by the increased focus on the maintenance of our facilities but I too am still lacking a clear view of how all the pieces fit together to support the Mission, Vision and Values statement we have recently adopted.

 

I viewed some presentation slides for the town halls and there was nothing that I saw about spending. Only future increases were shown. Maybe not all the slides are finished. I don’t know.
If I recall from the ASU survey, fitness and walking/biking were the most engaging activities.

 

If I recall correctly from those days long ago on the Finance Committee the goal was to ramp up spending on maintenance and capital over time to catch up on deferred maintenance, including maintenance capital. I agree with you that management should provide members with a 30,000 foot view of the spending rational/allocation and how it has changed over the last three years.

 

John, attend one of the town halls and I believe you will be impressed with the knowledge.

 

Dave. I have commitments in Cowtown that delay my return to the city of sun. I will need to watch the video and learn.

 

Hopefully all your questions will be answered. On a personal note, you might see a projected inflation rate for the five years at 4%. While that is a guesstimate, I told Kevin that the current inflation rate is around 2% which changes some of the figures contrary to some commercials being shown adnaseum on TV. True the 2% figure might not hold for any length of time but from my semi informed opinion a lot of factors go into this and can change in a nanosecond. Not sure how you see things.

 

My suggestion is decision making for the annual assessment rate increase should start with consideration of the COLA established for Social Security. It shouldn't be tied directly to that, but it could be a beginning point. "What can we afford?" rather than "What do we want?" Just like when I need to buy a new vehicle. A Bentley isn't in the picture!

 

I like Janet's train of thought about what can we afford. It certainly makes me question the dog facility and the theater.

 

Wow! Common sense. What a concept.

 

I wonder if the RCSC Board has recently asked the corporate attorney to give a legal opinion. I know there was once a lawsuit that ruled in favor of RCSC but perhaps there is recent rulings that might change that. Just a thought.

 

First, let me say that your arguments make sense to me even though it would hurt me financially. There are always complications and one of them is losing the double dip that applies to investors who rent to folks that want to be members. We own such a house and our tenant pays for a privilege card while we pay the full assessment as owners. So RCSC collects about twice as much money on these homes. Conversely, there is no requirement that long term renters be members. In the case where the renter does not purchase a privilege card only the owner pays the assessment. With a per person assessment the revenue side of the budget of RCSC would be difficult to predict. A per property assessment allows for a guaranteed revenue base which can be increased based on the number of privilege cards sold, golf rounds played, lines bowled and a few other things. Either per person or per property is doable but the per person assessment is harder transactionally to administer.

 

Wonder what makes this Sun City dumber than all the others in the country that charge per person. We did it before 2003. I guess The Greatest Generation was a hell of a lot smarter than The Boomers in the Original Sun City, but for some reason not in SCW, Grand. Oro Valley and all the others.

 

Tom, look the profit&loss (P&L) statement which is generally page 2 in the monthly financial statement available at the monthly Board meeting. It shows income from revenue sources listed and where it is spent. The proposed budget will show projected revenue and how much is spent itemized by cost centers, i., e., golf, non golf, finance, etc.

i believe you should have attended the other Budget and Finance meetings this summer as your concerns were discussed very in depth.

 

So what Sun City did in 2003 violates the Articles of Incorporation

 

There's even a bigger issue that is in play here: The 20,000-30,000 homes purchased between 2003 and 2024 had a contract on a lot assessment basis, not on a per person basis. What do you think the likelihood of a lawsuit being brought if that contract was broken/changed to a per person arrangement? I would wager 100% on it happening.

Robert makes solid arguments...until that point where a solution is proposed; in that there is nothing suggested. Grand-fathered agreements often results in butt ugly outcomes. In fact they did it that way in 2003 to avoid the push back from those who were living here. Even that was changed in 2009 when said only those remaining in the same home they owned in 2003 were grandfathered (guaranteed the single rate if a spouse died).

Which is neither here nor there. And, if memory serves me, this issue was part of the ARS argument that got tossed. Dave would remember better than i would. While i know this isn't your area of legal expertise John, it would seem to me telling home buyers over the past twenty years their contract has been changed would be problematic.

Worse yet, changing it only on or for future home owners wouldn't fix much, if anything from a budgeting standpoint. In fact, it may make it even messier. I wish they had never made the change in 2003. If somehow has a good/great idea to fix it, i'm all ears.

 

He intimated it wasn't legal to begin with.