Show Me the Money Allocating PIF money to recreational opportunities in Sun City is a very difficult undertaking. As we can see from the current Board each member has a strong bias toward one or two activities and they generally are supporting one another. They all seem to agree that they want to spend as much money as possible implementing their agenda while they are in power. Before anyone jumps up and cries foul, please realize that these volunteers are the same as anyone else: They have their favorite activities and want to see more spent on those activities. Not surprising. The question becomes, can these people with their biases make sound recreational decisions for the entire community. Each one of us will have differing views on the answer to that question based on, you guessed it, our biases. Now on to facts. The corporation has $33M in the unrestricted PIF account (see 2/28 balance sheet) and will collect about $7M per year in PIF fees. So, for those that like math, that means about $68M will be available to spend on preservation and improvement projects through 2028. The last approved allocation of these funds (11/28/2021) through 2028 was as follows: AWDR Water Reduction $17.6M Mountainview $27.3M Golf course maintenance buildings. $ 4.5M Total $49.4M Yes, there is a difference of over $18M (68m – 49m) and it will be interesting to see how this Board proposes to spend that money. So, for those of you who are still awake (and there may not be many) the current Board is trying to engage an architect to do the following to spend all or some portion of the $27.3M: Repair the Mountainview pool. Remodel the Mountainview fitness center. (not the auditorium) Build a new mini golf course (presumably to accommodate pickleball) Build more racquet courts dedicated to pickleball. Build a 300-seat theater with an orchestra pit somewhere. Build a large indoor dog training/socialization facility. Have the option to build a sports/lap pool we don’t need. To accomplish this the Board needs to eliminate tennis and lawn bowling at Mountainview. The auditorium (the main building at Mountainview) future is uncertain as is the funding to address it. The Board has hinted this building could be torn down and indoor pickleball courts could be built. All of this is as of now and the Board has made clear it may change things up as it goes along. Don’t worry members, you will be informed of Board changes when the Board chooses to inform you if it chooses to inform you. This all sounds like a few people making all the important decisions for the masses and then “agreeing” to inform the members once the decisions are made. So much for transparency. The members are being “served” from a menu that includes one dish: Board Stew (which is abbreviated BS). I am a firm proponent of hiring an expert to develop recreational options considering all our facilities before we foolishly and secretly spend money designing things that are not in our best interests. There are plenty of deferred maintenance projects ($20M) to keep our staff busy while we, the members, take this important step. With all due respect to our volunteer board and management staff, we simply do not have the expertise in-house to make wise long-term decisions, but we certainly have a lot of people claiming they have that expertise. Based on my understanding the expertise on our current board includes a mid-level college administrator, a retired air force person of unknown rank, a retired naval officer and government administrator, a VA contract administrator, a middle school educator, a technician specializing in plumbing design, a retired fireman, a pension investment manager, and someone else. These are all admirable careers but as I told the Board with respect to my expertise (business, accounting, finance and law), the experience is irrelevant to the task at hand; making multi million dollar recreational investment decisions. My advice continues to be, stop the BS (Board Stew) and hire an expert in recreational community planning. Give them free reign to develop professional solutions for delivering recreational opportunities that meet our current and future wants. If recommendations for an expert are needed, Gary Osier has a list, and I may have one person for members to consider. All applicants should be interviewed in open membership meetings much like the candidate forums. Thanks for listening.
Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to gather info and post. I wonder how much the annual assessment fee will increase, especially after they pretty much cut it in half by changing from per person to per rooftop in 2003.
Thanks for the info and your perspective John. And of course as has been stated in BOD meetings “nothing has been decided” and members will be kept informed and allowed to offer their opinions as we proceed. It was also my understanding someone is to be hired to determine what can be done and at what cost for a PAC. Much of what I hear and see seems to be nothing but delay and confuse tactics. Like Abott and Costello “who is on first?” As you know I am right with you on the long range planning. Whatever happened to Marlene and Plan M? Down the drain with the costs for her work?
In a quick read on new motions being made at next BOD meeting the word “assessment” is being deleted and replaced with the word “fee”. Wonder why? I’m guessing maybe to move away from lot assessment to per person fee. Of course saying this with understanding I may be missing something.
That's what our world has come to, word games! Illegal aliens are now referred to as Undocumented Americans and non-diclosure agreements are called hush money! Go figure!
Where does Director Rough’s motion refer to the annual assessment fee? Won’t any changes needed be included in the 2025 Budget presented to the board for approval this fall? BOARD MEETING AGENDA Thursday, April 25, 2024 New Business 1. Director Rough – I move to amend Board Policy #24 titled Preservation & Improvement Fee/Capital Improvement Fee as follows: • Modify language around death of a single owner who was married at the time of the purchase of a property to not require a new PIF Fee or CIF Fee on the transfer of property to a spouse as sole owner. See Section 1 Paragraph A number 7, and Section 2 Paragraph A number 7 for language. • Modify language requiring ownership for one year of a property that is sold, and subsequent Sun City property is purchased within a year of that sale. This would stop flippers from getting refund of PIf Fee and CIf Fee on new property not owned for a year. See Section 1 Paragraph C number 1, and Section 2 Paragraph C number 1 for language • Adds detail to allow use of PIF Capital and CIF Capital. See Section 1 Paragraph D number 4, and Section 2 paragraph D number 4. Agenda: https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/up..._25-Board-Meeting-Agenda-with-Attachments.pdf Board Policy #24 Preservation & Improvement Fee/Capital Improvement Fee: https://suncityaz.org/rcsc-board-policy-resolution-no-24/ 2024 Budget Presentation 10.17.23 Key Assumptions - Revenue, page 5 refers to Annual Assessment: https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/RCSC-2024-Budget-Presentation-10.17.23-distr.pdf
Great check eo, and correct that appears motion does not change language for annual assessment fee. I did realize that after posting and thought I would see if anyone was paying attention. I guess the motions are to clean up the language a bit. Thanks for catching my mistake and saying so!
Quick question before I am off to find out why in the heck Century Link is charging my neighbor $704.00 for phone and internet ONLY from 2/2/24 to 4/18/24. If you know any elderly folks without family please check on them. If they trust you ask questions. This 82 yr old man just lost his life partner of 47 years and what I am finding is sinful. Anyway from RCSC website: SECTION 5: LATE AND LIEN FEES, INTEREST AND COLLECTIONS Every Owner is responsible for the total of all assessments, fees and any other and all charges against the Property and Owners. All property assessments are due annually on the date escrow closed on the property and shall be considered in arrears following that date. Other assessments, fees and charges may be assessed from time to time, at the discretion of the Board, and shall be due and payable as outlined in the billing of such and shall be considered in arrears after the due date. What exactly does the bold, underscored portion mean?
I believe it means that not only can they change the fees, they can add an assessment anytime they please for any number of reasons! Happened to my sister-in-law in Florida who lives in an HOA. The hurricane came thru and tore-up all landscaping etc., so the corporation set a one-time additional fee! That sucks when your on a fixed income!
Gee, one more thing they don't bring to your attention when a person buys here. One more reason why my decision to move is the right one for me. "Buyer Beware" is tenfold for SC.
Am I reading this right? The private corporation RCSC has (or wants?) the power to control how and when we buy and sell our houses? How exactly do they have the authority to do that?
Wouldn’t restrict how and when property is bought and sold. However, to qualify for the refund of the Preservation and Improvement Fee and Capital Improvement Fee, the required length of time of ownership would become one year. Currently it must be completed within a one year timeframe. Does that now allow anyone who has owned their Sun City property at least one year or longer to sell and purchase another Sun City property to request a refund?? Hmmm. “RCSC Board Policy Resolution No. 24 SECTION 1: PRESERVATION & IMPROVEMENT FEE All refunds for PIF assessments must be applied for through the Cardholder Services Office. A refund of the PIF assessment may be available if: the sale/disposition/transfer of a previous primary Arizona residence in Sun City, Arizona is made within one (1) year of the purchase/ acquisition/ transfer/ inheritance of the other primary Arizona residence in Sun City, Arizona.” (Same content for Capital Improvement Fee refund)
Ah - that makes more sense. So having now taken time to read the actual proposed changes, besides being wrought with spelling and grammatical errors it cannot be approved for the simple fact (as someone else discovered), its language, specifically changing the acronym from Preservation and Improvement Fund to Preservation and Improvement Fee puts it in conflict with Bylaws Article III, Section 2. I especially like Section 4 of proposed changes where he wrote "PIF Fee" which would now read: 'Preservation and Improvement Fee Fee' - isn't that what people name their french poodles?? And one for John or any other lawyer: BP 24, Section 1/C / 6 - the last word is "and" (as opposed to "or") - Doesn't that mean that all 7 points must be fulfilled in order to qualify for refund??
Seems the BOD are still having trouble with the language in board documents pertaining to CIF and PIF. I hope they are working closely with an attorney or two?
