Do Numbers Matter?

Dig on. We used to say, "I can dig it," now it's "You dig it."

 

Bill wrote:
"I found an article just now from the late 90's where the board tried to raise rates because they were losing money on golf. The golfers went crazy and the board president said he was trying to put his hands on the documents to show the golfers. Apparently the RCSC doesn't have them, or if they do, can't/won't produce them. In any event, the documents that were drafted and signed matter. Golfers may not like it, but the entire point when purchasing them was to hold harmless the other 85% of the population from having to feed the money pit. That is why it took so long for the courses to be turned over, residents understood the potential for them to become a very costly proposition...and now they are just that."

I think I remember when they tried to float raising the rates. One big thing that has changed from then to now is that the courses are basically open to the public. The RCSC Members that now golf could be charged more but the outside players should be paying closer to what area private or public courses charge. Aren't we now offering public courses?

Yes, keep digging. We don't know what to do with the information until we know what it is.

 

Who drafted the final document?

 

The Articles of Incorporation were signed, dated and notarized on the 17th day of April 1977. This was for the creation of the Sun City Golf Courses INC. and drafted by the RCSC's attorney and signed by all 9 members of the board. They made up the officers of the SCGCI. That document says this: ""All of the assets of this corporation shall be held in trust for the purpose herein mentioned, including the payment of all of its liabilities." We could debate intentions of that language until you refer back to the purchase agreement originally drafted as an 18 month trial written by Webb's attorneys and signed off on by the board of directors of the RCSC. In 1977, 18 months later the contract was finalized and signed between the company (DEVCO) and the RCSC board of directors. There were a couple of clarifications regarding the purchase of equipment but that agreement clearly and unambiguously states the golf courses will be run without help from rec center fees.

 

I think it is fair to say that the RCSC will not be providing the documents.
Has anyone considered contacting DEVCO to obtain a copy of that contract. Usually when there is a contract between individuals/corporations, all parties get a copy of the contract.
Perhaps DEVCO has microfiche or even hard copy of the contract in an archive somewhere.
Just thinking out loud.

 

Not sure why we would need to scr.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10158221299302617&set=a.10150920695362617

 

I cannot get your link to work.

 

Works for me, odd. I can't load it any other way, any ideas?

 

What is it supposed to be?

 

Quit claim deeds for the golf courses to the Sun City Golf Courses INC. We have all of the originals from the Del E Webb Corporation. SCR suggested we try and get them form them, no need, we have them already. Just wanted you to see one of the pages.

 

What amenities in sun city are subsided by the RCSC?
Just curious as I know this will come up when discussing golf and being subsidized by the RCSC.

 

Everything other than golf and i have been told, 10 pin bowling (now i will have to look for that too, but 10 pin bowling has always been very careful about balancing their budgets). Lot assessments support clubs, it was the way we were built. Golfers moan to me about it, but i didn't write the rules, i'm simply trying to educate the members how it is SUPPOSED to work.

 

The argument is then going to be (if documents to the contrary cannot be produced) that golf is the same as supporting clubs with lot assessments.

 

SCR, if you want to come by my house i will show you the signed documents.

 

Bill, I have no reason to doubt that you have a document signed by all parties that golf must be self sustaining so I see no reason for me to come to your house. My 0nly concern is that if the documents exist, what are you going to do with them. I’m all for holding the Bod/GM’s feet to the fire and for them to prove that golf is self sustaining. Spending 4 mil on a GOLF maintenance building cannot make golf self sustaining.

 

There-in is the problem, the 4 million doesn’t count towards being “self-sustaining,” it falls into the PIF which is exempt. That is what makes all of this so butt ugly. PIF expenditures for golf are between 30 and 40 million dollars. Add in the yearly deficits and then whatever they spent in “Capital Expenditure” (both of which should have been included when determining the cost of a round of golf) and you quickly see why the RCSC and its members were reluctant to take ownership of the courses. They knew it had the potential to become a runaway train.

Now it has, and it will only get worse.

 

On one hand we have sustaining clubs/amenities which is the purpose of the RCSC annual lot assessment and initial PIF payment which is spelled out in the Corp documents and on the other hand the subsidizing of golf grounds, equipment, buildings, maintenance and personnel which was specifically forbidden by the written agreements. Maybe a new BOD will help to get to the bottom of this huge problem.

 

Well....that kinda makes you wonder who the board president will be next year! Will Sue Wilson still want it after all the controversy she went thru, and will anybody else want to put themselves in that position?

The board will vote for their own officers so it's out of our hands, but let's just hope that at least 4 candidates receive the required 100 votes so that we don't get anymore retreads on the board!

 

Hearing the numbers today didn't bring any relief. Can something be done between now and when our PIF funds will be drained for the golf course projects?

 

Probably not aggie. The PIF was passed to use to fix our aging amenities and golf courses were part and parcel of them. I can live with that; what i resent is board members allowing both yearly deficits and Capital Expenditures not being factored back into determining the cost of a round of golf. I would much have preferred we had management and the board come to the community with a proposal to override the terms the courses were taken under and allow a vote by the membership to agree with something other than just pretending it didn't exist.

Now we are looking down the barrel of a 26 million dollar fix. So i am clear, the agreement the courses were taken under included Viewpoint Lake as part of golf's obligation (50% of the costs). No matter how you slice it, it is one hell of a lot of money.