Impressive number to say the least eh? Through the first 11 months of this year, the RCSC has collected well over 6 million dollars for future improvements to the community. And by years end we will be coming close to the 6.5 million dollar mark. The Preservation and Improvement Fund (PIF) has been the single most important action taken in the past 55 years by our self-governed board. Their decision to pass an impact fee has insured Sun City would stay relevant and current into infinity. Yet if you read the lawsuit filed by a handful of disgruntled folks, you'll see where they felt community documents don't give that right/authority to the boards. They couldn't be more wrong. The real beauty of Sun City is it was built on the premise those living here would take on the responsibility of running it. As the documents have evolved, we've grown stronger and better, all with an eye to the future. The real tragedy is an individual who doesn't like the direction is small enough to sue rather than run for a position on the board and change it. Of course that would never happen because the minority never gets what they want, nor should they. As I said at the board meeting today: "Sun City has the most amenities at the least cost. We are self-governed. The decisions that have been made were done by residents who have devoted their time, energy and expertise to build a better community. There is not a better run age restricted community in the country...and if you don't like our direction, put your hand up and change it." How the hell does it get any better than that?
How did "that person" (not named) get to be so important to file a lawsuit. And, who is paying for her lawsuit?
The issues surrounding the RCSC membership requirements/parameters touch everyone in the community. I am not so sure this is isolated to the litigiously-inclined. I see this discussed in letters to the editor and just today the subject came up in a group bike ride. It affected us. It affected two other couples that happened to be at the RCSC offices when we were straightening our memberships out. The problem isn't that it's illegal, the problem is, it's patently unfair. Every property should get two memberships regardless of how the property is deeded. While singles may still see some inequity in this (though I wouldn't care if they could sell the second membership), I wouldn't support singles paying half. No, I'm not running for the board.
Anyone can file a lawsuit Peg. The individual behind all of this has been begging for dollars for near on 15 years. She used to post here and was invited to leave because every post she did included information how to send her money.
I've written volumes on this over the years, and one of the reasons every publication I have done has included some basic Sun City 101 on how Sun City works. We are like nowhere else you have come from. The vast majority of folks living here either don't knew or don't care about the how's and why's behind Sun City's governance. It's why I invariably include the history of the community when writing or talking about Sun City. If you understand that, you begin to understand just how challenging the past 55 years have been. Even when DEVCO was here building the community Sun City was fraught with issues/problems. Through it all we have not only survived but flourished. In late 1961 as Town Hall (Fairway) was opening, the board of directors there decided they wouldn't make the same mistake made at Community Center (Oakmont). They elected to enact a facilities agreement that bound buyers to pay a yearly fee to the center. Community Center was on a voluntary basis, and a large number of residents volunteered not to pay anything. That created enormous problems for them and lasted for years and years. There was even talk of shutting down Community Center at the end of each year as they ran short of money to fund it. They also explored selling it off to residents who would run it and make money in doing so. This is only important in that the "facilities agreement" signed by those living around Town Hall become the ultimate solution to Sun Cities future. It took years, but the two organizations finally merged and folks living around Community Center eventually voted in favor of becoming a single organization and signing a facilities agreement whereby they would also pay a yearly assessment. Facilities agreements are still the defining document on how and what people are obligated to pay to the RCSC (the criteria, not the amounts). Anyone buying here knows they are asked to sign one at closing. And while some act as if they have no choice, they do, they can walk away. Hate to sound callous, but if you don't like the terms, don't buy in Sun City. It was the mid 2000's when the board decided the massive fluctuations in revue made it very difficult to prepare budgets. While there were 27,000 plus rooftops, income from the lot assessment (rec fees) was all over the place. The board decided the best way to get their arms around the budget process was to charge a flat lot assessment whether there was 1 or 2 people in the household. Their solution was obviously challenging because there were any number of single folks living in Sun City that had signed facilities agreements that spelled out the terms. It was a legal binding document and the board couldn't nullify or change them. They "grandfathered" those owners and to this day (as long as they stay in that home) are covered by the terms of the facilities agreement. If they buy and move, they sign a new facilities agreement and they become subject to the new terms and conditions. It's a long diatribe, but one people need at least understand. The reality is that change created a more stable and realistic budgeting process. I've compared us to Sun City West who still has a single owner payment structure and in the time we are talking about their rates have skyrocketed compared to ours. Their single rate is close to our per property rate and they have witnessed massive increases in recent years. Obviously it's not just the single/double rates, but it's help stabilize Sun City. With all of that said, I do think going forward we need consider the whole "fairness" question. Board's have flip-flopped on this over the years, so who knows what lies down the road. I've said several times now, the next time I run for the board, it will be with two other like-minded individuals and we will put together a platform for change that either residents will support or won't. Sun City should be the model for governance in this country. We are that damned good. Doesn't mean we are perfect, or there are things we can't fix or improve on. That has been the benchmark for Sun City since it's inception...we identify problems and then find ways to make it all work.
Thanks for your comments, Bill. My thinking regarding this comes down to every homeowner getting equal value for their membership. That's two passes. For the reasons you've outlined, I wouldn't support single membership/passes. Also, this issue can change for existing residents. Think, widow(er) that had two passes with first spouse, widowed and remarried. Without a deed change, the second spouse is now out of luck. In our case, the RCSC interpreted that a survivor trustee didn't qualify. Come on. Why put yourself (RCSC) in the position of looking arbitrary or unfair. Unless I'm missing something, it seems like a no-brainer. By the way, while we were penalized by the current structure, I took this same stance prior to that when the single vs married discussion came up in this very forum. Oh, and I'm not losing any sleep over it. Put it on your platform, Bill! :xmas:
It always was there Mick, I just didn't have the support to get it done. Next time around will be wholly different. And just a footnote on the suit, the whole thing has centered on an individual who felt she knew better than those elected by the board. Which is exactly why I bring up the history. The community has been filled with folks who have had better ideas; sometimes they get elected and change them, sometimes they don't. This lawsuit is nothing more that the way for a disgruntled person to try and get her way. It's why I have so little respect for her actions. If her way was better, she should get elected and change it...it's how Sun City was built and why we have thrived without a local government body with all of the trappings other cities and towns have and pay through the nose for.
As some regular participants here know we are preparing for our move from MN to AZ in early summer. One of the main considerations on our choosing a community is financial. In that consideration there are several parts including property taxes and hoa (or rec fees). Sun City has an advantage long term over all other communities in the annual rec fee. As we consider Sun City West we notice that fees are charged on an individual not household basis. I would like to see Sun City remain as it is with a fee per household (2 passes) rather than the method used in SCW. This is a substantial reason we continue to consider Sun City as a future home.(We are boomers).
One last thing. In case there's any confusion, I am in no way supportive of the current litigation. I'm in complete agreement that changes should come through the existing structure. If anything, the suit will probably be detrimental to "progress" as people dig in their heels.
No one with two ounces of common sense would support this suit going forward Mick. Even if you don't like the way Sun City is run, the very idea you are suing yourself is mind-numbing. The only winners will be the attorneys. A judge is not going to tell Sun City how to govern the community. Nor will the judge award anyone their money back from PIF payments or lot assessment fees paid because they were single owners. The person behind the filing has been begging legislators for years to force Sun City to fall under Title 33 of the State Statutes (Planned Communities Act). We have always operated under Titlle 10 (Organization and Corporations). Her goal was to to have us be considered a Home Owners Association but we do not meet all of the requirements of the statute. That entire discussion makes most people's eye's glaze over. The reality is Sun City and the RSCS have the legal right under their documents to run the corporation in the best interests of the community. While the whole question of how cards should be distributed is one I think worthy of consideration, a judge will not force us to change it. It's why this suit never gained traction over the years, there's little substance and way too much hyperbole. The best scenario is it gets thrown out of court and we can get on running Sun City as it was meant to be run...by the people living here and through the established means as described in both the Articles of Incorporation and the By-Laws. The real beauty of Sun City is in the outcome. While we have had more than our fair share of issues over the years, those living here have always been able to work through them and make Sun City a better place to live. As much as it has been our legacy, it will also be the footprints we follow into the future.
It would not be singles paying half, it would be singles paying their share. Not only does the single household not get two passes, but they can ONLY get two passes if they are married. If its a roommate or unmarried couple they also cannot get two passes. That's BS. For those of you who say that singles signed the agreement and knew what they were getting into, well, I think that's too simplistic of a statement to make. I was not going to let that one thing stop me from buying into SC, but it still doesn't mean I won't keep gripping about it. Its wrong. Period. It really makes it a community built for married couples. And it was not always historically that way either, as is well known. I certainly wouldn't join in the law suit but I hope the board will realize this error in the future and give a property what they are paying for: two passes. What's the big deal about it anyway?
There are unmarried couples living in Sun City, under one roof, each have a pass, and did not have to pay any additional fee. Let's talk solutions (by the way, I fall on the each property, paying the published fee, should be allowed 2 passes): - Has anyone consistently brought this to the Member Exchange meetings? If not, why not? I'm just guessing, but wouldn't that be the place to start? How would the "2nd pass" work? - Would the home owner be allowed to hand the pass off to anyone at anytime? We have two passes at our house, but that doesn't mean I can take one of the passes and give it to my sister when she visits. - Would the home owner, and the person who uses the 2nd pass (assuming it is not the same person the entire year), have to go to the RCSC offices to register the 2nd pass at the beginning of the persons visit? Would that come with a time window in which it could be used? Put together a reasonable solution and put it before the board. If nobody does that, this will never be addressed.
And therein lies the biggest challenge V; administration would be a nightmare. Who get's what and how? I know it's easy to say two cards to every household but does that work? Because if it's simply a question of fairness, how about multiple property owners who get nothing for house #2 through however many they own. That's why I say it is that simple to me; those are the terms we bought under. We knew we would be paying both the PIF and the lot assessment without any getting anything in return (other than our renters would also be paying fees for the months they were here as well). That said, I suspect in the years to come, there will be a push to change this and through the established mechanism in place. That's how it should work and I would actively work towards a more equitable solution. I just don't know what it is because from a budgetary standpoint, this has worked well. I'd start with the premise if two people lived in a property, two cards should be issued. A person living alone could perhaps get punch cards to cover guests as needed or used. Just have to tell you when I made these kinds of arguments on the board I got little or no support. Ideas will always be more appealing than complaining it's not fair.
Why couldn't single-deeded owners have the choice of putting their second pass in another's name, granting them full membership, or having it be a guest pass with whatever restrictions, if any, that accompany it. They would exercise their choice each year at renewal. Regarding owners of multiple properties: I don't see a problem. It there are two people on the deed, they get the memberships. If they already hold a membership, the only possible benefit would be to reset their expiration date. If a single owner owned two properties, he/she could have two guest passes (see above). Each property pays the same fee. Each property gets two memberships with the exception of repeat owners. I can't envision a huge push to allow investors to accumulate and reassign memberships.
A platform based on fairness (see above) and development of a cutting edge, digital infrastructure would be tough to beat. Especially if Bill is selling it.
But as you just said you've presented ideas before and the board did not care. Reading the past year or so about the uphill battle trying to convince the board to do anything does not make a person ready to start the fight. Singles are a minority. Maybe a few of you care here because we talk on the forum but most will probably not see it as much of an issue.
I don't think it's a matter of the Board or Management not caring. The RCSC is a corporation and wisely managing financials is their responsibility. The problem is how to somewhat guaranty what the annual income will be and also follow the regulations to remain aTitle 10 non-profit corporation. The RCSC and the Sun City Home Owners Association also must protect the Senior Citizens Overlay by closely watching the 55+ year old age requirement. All that said, I do think it would be possible to grant some concessions to those single 55+, deeded and Sun City primary resident property owners a guest punch card of, say 50 punches, to be used by the single title holders' guests. I don't think multiple property owners should get a break on any of their income properties as that is the cost of doing business. The only way to guaranty the yearly income for the RCSC is to charge the assessment on a per property basis. The makeup of the Board of Directors changes every year. If you have a workable idea to address this issue, the monthly Board Exchange Meeting is right place to share it.
Now we're talking...an exchange of possible solutions. "Fair" will never be achieved. Someone who is passionate about this topic will need to take up the mantle. They will need to have clear and convincing documentation to present to the board. This documentation will need to: - provide a satisfactory solution for both single/non-single/multi-property home owners - illustrate the annual income will remain consistent - provide information that the solution will be easy to administer Honestly, this is not something I am passionate enough about to take up the mantle, but I will support whoever does.
Though I own, I unfortunately I do not live in SC yet so it would be difficult to accomplish. When I do move in permanently I'll give it a shot...unless someone already in residence is willing to start it.
