$1.5 million for indoor dog club building. Sun City Newspaper April 10, 2024

What I read I could hardly believe.
I was a dog owner over 40 years. we Used to raise Afghans & Russian wolfhounds. In the 1970’s, I worked for a veterinarian. So… I do like dogs. ( and cats).
Your opinions & thoughts on RCSC supports dog club’s new $1.5 million indoor facility & had a 2nd reading of motion to fund a search for a suitable, location for climate controlled indoor facility for Best Friends Dog Club. Newspaper had a lengthy article this week.

 

This is a ludicrous amount to spend for a limited venture. How in the devil did this craziness get this far? We are haggling over the cost of a community asset in the libraries, but are willing to throw money at such a folly? Yes, I still call it a wasteful folly.

 

How can they possibly spend 1.5 million on a SEARCH for a site in an area the size of Sun City? Put some walls and a roof around their current area at Fairway and add an AC unit. Probably do it for a half million.

 

I voted against Director Collins' motion for a number of reasons and felt President Fimmel had a clear conflict of interest that she did not disclose. You be the judge: When Director Collins originally made the motion Rocky Fimmel, wife of current Board President Kat Fimmel, was president of the BFDC - Never before disclosed. Director Collins had indicated to me that all club requests for PIF funding must go through the club's office, but this motion never did. Instead, it went straight to the Board courtesy of Director Collins. I questioned the GM on this and got the response that it will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Seems like double standards to me. I am a dog lover at heart but the amount and concept are ludicrous considering less than 50% of RCSC flat floor space is utilized and we have a huge, deferred maintenance capital liability. The club for which this building would be built has 350 members and I will bet at least 40% of those folks leave during the summer. During the library debacle Vice President McAdam mentioned that some informal discussions with some board members may have occurred regarding (?) - perhaps "secretly" repurposing the Fairway branch as an indoor dog facility since it sits next to the specially built outdoor dog training facility. It is clear that this Board is intent on achieving only its own agenda and the rest of the members have been fed to the dogs, so to speak.

 

My understanding was that the $1.5 million was to pay for the facility. I don’t believe the motion itself says anything about a study. Collin’s seemed to mention a study/search more as a quick side comment. Did I miss something?

 

Tom is right Bruce, the money wasn't for a search, it was to build it and likely wouldn't be enough. Covering the outdoor area sounds logical but won't work. Any additional enclosed area would require additional parking spaces (per code) and they were maxed out when they built it.

 

The board has the very hard task at exchanges to have to sift thru all the many club requests. I think any board wants to treat members with consideration and with an open mind to all of the many intentions and needs these clubs feel they have. I think this board has done that, but again, this is a hard and difficult task. You cannot possibly say affirmative to all of the many wants, wishes and desires coming from members who live here and want to have many enhancements to there clubs. I was honestly shocked about the affimative for having a dog stadium. I love dogs and have had them in my life, but I thought the request was excessive. I remember that day because I told my husband how stunning it was that no one said, hey, let's stop the train here and we need to really take a serious look at this and we are not in any position to grant anything at this time based on allocated funds, the overall cost, and seriously the need. I think when big dollar ideas come our way, that's when we slow or stop the train. I respect all of those who are currently or have in the past contributed to the community. Not easy by any means.

 

The board could overturn their voting on the dog house. Why not wait till the 5 year plan is done? Though I guess the dog facility is now part of the plan? I don’t know.

Eileen your other points also point to why a 5 AND 15 year financial plan are needed. These plans should help all MEMBERS to better understand the financial decision making process of the BOD/management. And if I were a betting person, I would bet the plans would even improve decision making. Wishful hope?

 

Of the many comments we've heard of late regarding how "bad they are," it inevitably makes me smile. From 2006 we watched an organization built and run from the bottom-up, to become one where it strictly top-down and worse yet, virtually no one paying attention and with barely a whiff of holding anyone accountable. Documents were written giving complete autonomy to the general manager. Safeguards insuring the members having a voice, were stripped from our documents and left members neutered. They are starting to be restored.

The other day i had a friendly exchange with a former RCSC employee who did a great job working for them in a position she had constant member interaction. She was that good. She argued the new board and gm were nothing like her boss. She's right, nothing like what we lived through and watched unfold. The problem wasn't that her boss was bad, evil or intending to do anything that hurt the RCSC.

The problem was her "vision" was blurred by her belief she could do it better without member input. She was truly a nice person and she had great interpersonal skills. She got along with the board, the members and her management team. I've written before, theoretically, telling members to just enjoy their retirement and leave the worrying to her and the RCSC hierarchy sounded like a solid plan.

Let me be blunt; plan's are only as good as the outcomes they produce. By the time she left and her new hand-picked guy to replace her took over, the cracks in our structure were becoming more obvious with each passing day. Technology, deferred maintenance and golf were all problems that had festered over the years. Those were the visible ones. Now, a couple years down the road, we see how fractured our internal system/structure has become.

I have been accused of defending the new board and new management team. True, i've always believed in giving people a chance to prove themselves. Anyone thinking new board members or new management can come in and be perfect is pure folly. No one is that good. No one. Mistakes will be made and the measuring tool should be how they respond. Sure, get angry they aren't perfect, but none of us are perfect. What's the adage about casting the first stone?

What we need to do is fix the structure. Years ago the long range planning committee got requests for PIF projects. They weighed them and made recommendations. The board ultimately voted for or against, but a crowd of 50 or 100 members didn't shove proposals or motions down their throats by complaining louder or harder. Years back, clubs submitted requests for improvements they wanted/needed and reviewed by board members. Then that process was changed to a single RCSC employee (often the assistant GM) deciding who got what. That too is and was problematic. A committee of members could and should be in place, thereby eliminating the bias and the favoritism.

There's way more, none more dramatic or defining than the recent library debacle. As members raged against the GM, (much deserved), we looked and posted Board Policy 32 and it clearly gave him the authority to do what he did. Years ago, that would never have happened. The rewrite of our documents shifted the power and control to the general manager. It was yet again another case of trusting the management team to do the right thing with little or no oversight.

The point here is there is a lot of work for the new board and new management team to do. Rightly so, they prioritized the problems; budget, finance and the reserve study are being dealt with. They addressed the Mountain View remodel (who doesn't like they got the mini-golf opened?) and reduced it to elements that are practical and affordable. They moved on the security issues at Oakmont.

There's still lots of work to do; almost more than is imaginable. They can do themselves a world of good by putting the library issue to bed with 5 year contracts. That would be significant in beginning to restore the faith in the board. We'll see.