RCSC Exchange Meeting - Monday, May 12, 2025 at Sundial Center auditorium. About 40 members attended. There was a Mountain View Center update presentation. VIEW VIDEO on RCSC YouTube channel, length 1:25:57, HERE: https://www.youtube.com/@suncityaz7348 Mountain View Update Exchange meeting 5/11/2025 A Message from the RCSC Board of Directors • Mountain View Progress • In Progress for the RCSC BOD • In Progress for triARC • Member Engagement • What Comes Next • We Need Your Help View six slide deck: https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/RCSC-Mountain-View-May-Update.pdf
I watched The RCSC Exchange Meeting on May 12th. I found one section particularly interesting regarding the assessment fee. Every time a single owner has talked about the unfairness of a single paying the same amount, $650, as the married couple, $650, the single person is ignored. During this exchange meeting a man spoke to charging per person as many can't afford it. I brought up once that I felt overcharged on this site. I am 1 person causing wear and tear on facilities; however a married couple causes twice the wear and pays the same. When I mentioned finances, I was told to move if I didn't like it. This married man got a personal invitation from Director Collins to meet with him after the meeting so he could "explain". WOW.....................in addition that couple that can't afford it has twice the SSI income that I have.
The reason there was no discussion is because this issue was litigated and the case decision was ruled WITH prejudice by the judge.
Wasn't Title 33 the main issue of Anne's lawsuit? The person who brought up the assessment fee heard they were thinking about going back to per person, which is what I heard as well.
The ARS lawsuit had a lot of things going on. I don't remember it all now. But I do remember the assessment ruling. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right or fair. I guess they could decide to go back to the single person assessment if they wanted to but legally they do not have to and it cannot be litigated again because the ruling was with prejudice.
Appears to be a board decision in 2003 Why does my neighbor pay only half of what I pay every year? As of February 1, 2003, the RCSC Board of Directors changed the basis for determining the annual property assessments. For properties purchased after this date the annual property assessment is charged on a Per Property basis which charges the same amount regardless of the number of deeded property owners. For properties purchased prior to February 1, 2003 without additional ownership interests added, the basis for determining the annual property assessment is on a Per Person basis which charges an amount for each deeded property owner. The Per Person basis amount is set as one half of the Per Property basis amount. As a result of the number of deeded property owners, there may be a difference in the assessment charged between properties purchased before and after February 1, 2003. Please see RCSC Corporate Bylaws (Article III, Section 1) for detailed information regarding the annual property assessment basis and when it changes Doubtful Anne would have fought too hard on the per rooftop as she was married forever. Her husband died in 2023. She was friends with my mom and I don't remember that being part of her issues. I have not talked with her since Christmas. Need to chat with her.
Yes, however, it was one of the issues in the lawsuit because the lawsuit has to do with things being fair among all members. Idk if you can find the case number on this website and then go look up the decisions on the county website. It started out with CV-2015..... And there may have been separate decisions handed down on different dates.
Nah! Won't change in my lifetime. I just found it interesting that the many people who stood up at exchange meetings that were single to complain about it were ignored, and the one time a married person stands up against going to per person he gets a personal invite from Collins for a private chat. Just struck me as odd.
Josie, out of the goodness of my heart, I give the case number for the Anne Stewart revenge suit. The case was titled: Anderson v. RCSC CV 2015-012458 Rule on Pending Motions delivered 10/8/2019 Plaintiffs basically had their heads handed to them. The ruling is 18 pages. Have fun with it. Personally I always thought that Title 33 was an ex post facto law in relation to Title 10 and the RCSC. While the litigation was pending, RCSC had Debbie Lesko had the State Legislature pass an ex post facto law protecting the RCSC from an ex post facto law. You just can’t make this stuff up. Have fun reading it.
You may be correct. When I started as an underwriter the company took my heart because the job required that I have no heart. I was told it would be returned when I left the company. I retired but never got my heart back. Guess that is why I am a cynical SOB, but happy.
