Golf. Before I get to the heart of the matter, let me preface my remarks. Like Rusco, I have determined a retirement move to greater Phoenix is in my future and am considering alternatives. I have taken the Sun City tour multiple times and love the community, amenities, value, people, and the concept of volunteerism. Sun City sits at the very top of the list and distances the competition. I just wish Mr. Pearson would stop driving up demand/prices with posts on various internet forums. Now to the heart of the matter - Golf. I have nothing against golf or golfers. I know many are passionate about golf and I think it is a great sport. It is just not how I choose to spend my time for various reasons. My concern is that Sun City spends a highly disproportionate amount of revenue on golf relative to golfers in the community. I recognize and support the notion that being a part of a community means paying for things you don't want or use. I don't see myself working in the metal or ceramics shop, but am thrilled Sun City offers these activities. However, when I see the community spend MILLIONS on golf course redos at a time when golf is waning among boomers and water prices are rapidly escalating, I start to cringe. I don't think I am alone. This issue ties into the concept of long range planning that has been debated herein. Insanity is doing the same thing all over again (massive outlays on golf) and expecting different results. With golf waning among boomers and the costs (water etc,) to support golf far outpacing inflation, Sun City is on an "insane" trajectory. This issue needs to be discussed, debated, alternatives considered, and plans put in place. The recent increase in the Improvement Fund is not the answer and just another example of short-term thinking. While most likely do not see it this way, the increase to the improvement fund was nothing more than a hidden "tax" on CURRENT residents. They or their successors will pay the price when their home is sold. As I am not familiar with the deed restrictions on the golf courses, I'll ask people like Mr. Pearson to weigh in on the alternatives. Nonetheless, Sun City needs a plan to deal with this issue as the golf costs/membership interest proportions continue to get further out of whack with each passing day. Doing nothing and keeping one's head in the sand is not the answer.
You've summarized my arguments on golf about as well as I have seen anyone do here or anywhere else for that matter Riggo. It's been a long standing battle about how much money goes into golf and just what are the hidden costs relative to golf in Sun City. I do love the idea of expanding the patios around the golf courses, but struggle with longer, wider tee boxes and more pin placements on greens. There's a point where there will never be a return on investment...unless...and this is where it all becomes plausible: I've written this before and it gets barely a blink, and maybe that's a good thing. Our golf courses (the RCSC) are deed restricted and we have no choice but to maintain them. DEVCO sold/gave them to us that way. There are however 3 private courses in Sun City and given the ugliness we went through at SCHOA when Sun City County Club sold years back, I'm not sure they were deeded in the same manner. The good news was the Sun City Country Club buyers committed to make it work as a golf course; had any of the other buyers got it, that might not have had the same outcome. The other 7 were land developers. That's why the KHov opening will be the ultimate test for Sun City's future. If they blow through those homes, imagine what happens to the value of raw land in a land locked community. While I cringe over every excessive dollar we pump into golf courses, it might well be the stimulus for the owners of the those 3 private courses to look at the potential profits as something other than golf courses. The thing we know is all three have to fight for their survival year after year. We know their course infrastructure is getting old just like the RCSC's are, as are their buildings. They don't have the resources to update watering systems, wells and course design and as the RCSC improves their courses, the 3 private courses pale in comparison. I think it becomes a pretty simple mathematical equation, not that I'm advocating for it, I think it's all just a matter of time. If and when it happens there will be plenty of pain to home owners and so the solution would be lots of green space allocations built into site designs and lot layout. The number of homes added to the community would be significant, the number of potential golfers would be increased and they would be looking at playing less courses...which would help the courses be more self-sustaining. It's an interesting discussion and one the community should be exploring via a long range planning committee. But alas, there's a couple of dinosaur's on the current rec board continuing their efforts to keep that from happening. Suffice to say, time will change that and this current over-investment in golf may well turn out to be the dynamic that enhances the community's future in ways we ever imagined. If you look at it in those terms, it all makes sense.
The three private courses are Union Hill Country Club, Sun City Country Club, and Riverview Country Club? Just asking so I know which ones to avoid when looking at houses (not that a home on a golf course is something we are specifically looking for).
It's Sun City CC, Union Hills CC and Palmbrook CC. I wouldn't necessarily avoid buying on it, but I wouldn't want to be paying a large premium for it unless the owner can show you deed restrictions that keep it from happening. The Sun City CC is owned by two brothers who have worked their butts off to make it as a golf course. No idea on the other two, but if it like the SCCC it has share holders who will have to decide what to do if the land increases in value. The challenge is if someone offers you a million or two and a commitment to keep it a golf course or 10 or 15 million dollars for property development, which way would you go? Especially with the private course needing a significant investment to keep it solvent. The interesting aspect is really about how fast the KHov development sells out. If the interest levels are off the charts and buyers are plentiful, its a no-brainer. It's simply supply and demand. If they open and no one shows up, a whole other story. The thing is, those 3 private courses all of wonderful layouts for development and still maintain significant areas of green space for both existing owners bordering the course and potential buyers looking for quality homes and some open space around them. No sense of urgency, just trying to look into the crystal ball and see what might be coming down the road over the next 5 or 10 years.
The more I see the PIF discussed the more questions I have about it. $3,000 is not an insignificant sum and I’m wondering, in light of the lack of long range planning, how that amount came to be. And was it something current residents had a voice in determining and voted on at the time or was it imposed? With the cash flows involved who’s to say that amount isn’t excessive? I don’t play golf either, but can easily see the attraction it offers…golf courses are beautiful green spaces and I would think offer a pleasant contrast to desert landscape. I’m thinking living on one might not be a bad idea, but I also have a social conscience about the water usage necessary to maintain them. Unless SC is somehow magically different, isn’t there a critical shortage of water pretty much everywhere out west? In coming years water availability or the lack of may become the determining factor in lots of decisions.
Good question HN and one the new-comers I'm sure all are curious about. Let's start with a recap: Sun City was built out by 1978 and the Del E Webb Development Corporation (DEVCO) moved on to Sun City West. By then they had deeded all of the golf courses and rec centers to the RCSC. While that may seem like a magnanimous gesture, they had paid for them with a point of sale add-on to every home. The numbers are at the museum, with something in the neighborhood of $150 in Phase 1, $225 in the early stages of Phase 2 and $250 or so till build out was completed. Of course the golf course properties were even more lucrative, because they were sold at a premium (used to cover the cost of the land and building the courses). To give you an idea, in 1960 golf course lots were an extra $1200 by 1975 here's the lot price menu from Galleria 75: Corner lots and A lots (8500 square feet and up): $500. Lake lots: $10,000 to $17,000. Golf course lots; $9990. A lots on golf courses $10,490. Rancho Estate lots: $9990. Realistically, DEVCO gave us back what we had paid for. The benefit to them was they got out from under running them and trying to keep them profitable. From the communities standpoint, it created a setting where we needed to take on the responsibilities of ownership and embrace the whole idea of self-governance. It had the potential to be a win/win. In the early 80's the internal battles were intense. There were still some pushing for incorporation. In 1982 there were a dozen candidates for the RCSC board, as well as a recall petition for the president and vice president. There were those who ran on a platform to be fiscally conservative (spending no monies) and those who saw the need to be just the opposite. Like all developers, DEVCO had subsidized the community while they were selling homes. The first half of the 80's was a tipping point for Sun City as the more progressive candidates were elected. Costs began to rise. By the mid 90's, the infrastructure built by DEVCO and deeded to us was beginning to age. A long range planning committee was put in place, unfortunately, it didn't have any money to work with. In 1998 a friend of mine went to one of those first meetings. He was a former county commissioner from Wisconsin and suggested they use a technique they had used back home, an impact fee (a point of sale fee to new buyers). They laughed at him and told him he was crazy. Oddly enough, by 1999, the RCSC board saw the handwriting on the wall and knew they needed to begin to raise some money as buildings and courses were showing their age. They bravely passed the first Preservation and Improvement Fee of $700. It was a bold move and I don't know if they realized it, but it was no different than what Webb did in building the community; asking new buyers to pay for the improvements they would enjoy for years to come. In 2003 the board voted to move the rate up to $1200. That brought out the Realtors who screamed it would kill sales in Sun City. Since that time there has been 3 or 4 more increases, with each generating a prediction the raise in the PIF would be the end of Sun City. The oddity is, without the PIF, Sun City would be DOA today. The way it was structured it allowed the board to do the improvements without a vote by the residents as long as they didn't take on debt of more than $750,000. It's one of the reasons Sun City is debt free and in all likelihood always will be. My concern over the raise this time was simple: Without a long range planning committee, where will we be spending the money? Do we really need it? I could argue either way' what I don't want to see happen is for the community being removed from the equation and the RCSC board becoming the decision makers. That flies in the face of how Sun City was built and why it has succeeded. As far as water, Sun City is an interesting study. In 1960 water wasn't as big an issue as it is now. Sun City (the RCSC) owns a half a dozen wells, has two lakes that help feed the aquifer and has several holding ponds on the various golf courses. In the mid to late 2000's, they found Viewpoint Lake had serious leak. We tried a patching substance that failed and the idea they would need to drain it and resurface it was daunting (and a whopping 10 million dollar price tag). The general manager began to put together a proposal to the state regarding Viewpoint Lake. In it, she said the leakage was ultimately draining back into the aquifer and we were using it to water our golf courses. It was true and in it, we included a water preservation plan where we would invest significant resources to make our courses more water friendly. New irrigation systems would be installed on all the courses along with the incredible computerized programs insured good distribution as well as watering when and where needed was a huge selling point for the state. We also committed to some work on the wells we owned and an agreement was reached. It was why much of the work on the courses is a real value to both the community and for those who understand the importance of water conservation. I know this is more than you wanted Henry, but for me it is exactly why Sun City is so special; whenever there's been a problem in this community, we figured it out. From 1960 to 1978, in conjunction with DEVCO. From 1978 on, we had to take that ownership to heart and find solutions that worked and didn't drive residents into bankruptcy with huge increases or costly assessments. The PIF was the perfect solution in that if buyers didn't want to pay it, they could buy somewhere else. When you consider we have been averaging 6 homes plus sold every day of the year for the past three years, the PIF hasn't come close to the dire predictions of those who stood in opposition to it over the years. Hope that helps get your head around the original Sun City AZ.
Has there always been a paid General Manager? If I would change one thing on golf, it would be to change the policy about golf fees for employees. It is my understanding that employees pay $2.00 per round and there are over 200 employees some of which are not RCSC cardholders. It's a great benefit but look at all the money lost if only half the employees play 2 rounds a week. Let them use all the free amenities i.e. workout rooms, swimming pools, mini golf, tennis, pickleball etc. There are more than enough benefits using these facilities without free paid sports such as golf and bowling.
Hopefully my good friend Ben will jump in here and add to the answers, but for now let me just say there's been a General manager from very early on in Sun City's history. In fact, there's been lots of them. They've come and gone like the wind, because during those early years. the board has been far more involved in the running of the community. The current GM might well be the longest running one and have the most authority. The recently deceased Art William's use to complain the current boards are nothing like the past ones. He claimed previous board members were working 30 to 40 hours per week. I don't know if it's true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out it was. The guys (men and women) from the old days had a different perspective and were more hands-on. In fact, when I ran, other board members were concerned my goal was to get involved in the day to day operations. Pure nonsense, because if I wanted a job, I'd go find one. Board members deal with policy, staff handles day to day stuff. I've used the term before, syncrosinicity (in fact I did a thread on it). Here's the classic example: I was digging through my stuff on the Sun Bowl purchase from DEVCO and came across this newspaper article from May5, 1989 in the Daily News-Sun: SC rec board prohibits employee use of centers. It went on to say; Recreation Centers of Sun City employees will no longer be allowed to use facilities such as golf courses and bowling alleys except in the performance of their duties. Interesting given your question regarding RCSC employees and them being able to golf for a reduced rate. No idea when they changed the policy, but the board voted 6 to 1 back in 1989. I know while on the board we looked at the number of employee rounds played, and for a couple of employees it was off the charts high, the bulk were minimal rounds played per year. I know the GM feels it is a benefit to help attract employees who are not highly paid, but whether it's true or not is above my pay grade. I was going to get into the whole Sun Bowl purchase, but I will save that for another post. It's quite the story and certainly worth knowing about.
BPearson: I hoped you’d offer your thoughts and I do appreciate the in-depth response; as always yours is a perspective gained over time and you know the history. I think your concerns are similar to my own…it’s not so much the money as how that amount was determined, how it’s allocated among the various recreational options…and who decides. As you point out, it’s a large and continuing inflow of cash as property changes hands. It sounds like this is not so much based on defined need as much as being sure there’s always going to be enough money on hand when needed and maybe that’s the best way to proceed since it seems to be working…facilities are being maintained and updated. So, this isn’t a personal deterrent to buying…it was just one of the aspects I was curious about. The water issue is probably of greater concern. With so little rainfall aren’t those aquifers steadily dropping over time? Is there a concern about the potential future need for the imposing of individual water usage restrictions like they’ve had to do in parts of California? I'd hate to think it might ever come to that!
If there is Henry, we've neither seen it or felt it. Having watched Lake Mead drop like is has is troubling to everyone. That said, Sun City is in good shape water wise and as long as we do the right things internally, I suspect we'll maintain that position. It is interesting in that I heard the other day a comment on the value of water rights on these 3private courses and I have to admit, it was over my head. As far as how we (the RCSC) spend money, there was a letter to the Editor in the Independent today. The writer argues we don't need a long range planning committee because the board and general manager were doing a great job. Then she went on to pontificate those clamoring for a LRPC were just frustrated residents wanting to get their hands on the millions of dollars because they've never had that kind of money to spend on their own. I'm used to people not knowing what they are talking about (hell, some days I do it myself), it's all part of the joy of living here. What threw me was it is a friend of mine and a former board member...she knows better. Committee's cannot spend a dime of the PIF or of any monies raised by the RCSC...all they can do is make recommendations to the board who ultimately make the decisions. I just hate when people use arguments to make a point when they know they are dead wrong in what they are saying.
