The Special Board Meeting on Whether to Go Ahead with Construction of Recreation Center No. 3

Lately, our Board has been thinking about our planned Recreation Center #3, now planned for completion in 2008. No, actually, the Board has gone much further than just thinking—they have gone somewhat wild in their approach to RC3—although some in the audience listening to the Board’s presentation were less kind, with expressions afterwards like, they’re nuts, crazy and other less approving comments, along with outbursts of expressions of utter disbelief to what the Board was proposing.

This past Wednesday evening, the Board was proposing not to go ahead with construction of Recreation Center #3, as incredible and unbelievable as that sounds.  

For reasons that defy common sense, the Board was proposing to kill RC#3, although they may tell us that is not their plan. But if that was not their intent, the Board would not have held this special meeting to present their case. To validate their decision, the Board is planning to conduct a survey of all residents, provide us with some statistics that demonstrate low facility usage, and to point out that our dues in 2009 are likely to increase $100 a year, or $8.33 a month.

Regardless of what the survey shows, we were told the Board will decide what to do in the best interest of the Community. As with any survey of this type, if the survey results support the Board’s decision, then the Board can say they relied heavily on the will of homeowners. If not, the Board can say that they carefully considered the views of the residents and came to a different conclusion. One reason for conducting any survey is to be able to appear as if you are reflecting the will of the people.

Although not quite in this form, the survey’s message is something like this:

You don’t really want RC#3, do you?

• Big increase in annual assessments—$100
• Poor use of current facilities

Question: Shall we build RC#3?

      Yes  _________
                  No   _________

Remember, this survey will go to the 80% of the homeowners that do not utilize our recreational facilities. The Board knows that—in fact, they’re are relying on that fact that 80% of the membership makes little to no use of our facilities.

Adoption of Scare Tactics

“Oh,” you say, “wait a minute.” Your letter from the Board states that assessments will increase "as much as $200." What’s going on here? Did I make a mistake? The Board's letter is interesting since at the meeting on the 21st, no mention was ever made of an increase in assessments of “as much as $200 per year.” In fact, the ONLY amount ever mentioned by the Board was a potential increase of “$100,” as I stated above.

Perhaps the Board was overwhelmed by the hostile reaction of the residents who were present, or by the validity of the counter-arguments that were presented in opposition to the Board’s proposal. Otherwise, why would the Board now want to tell us about assessments going up “as much as $200 per year.” Does that 100% in the amount of the projected increase in dues reflect a measure of desperation or recognition that their proposal was in serious trouble? The sad truth was that Board didn’t seem to care in the least, intent, as it seemed, on garnering as many “NO” votes on their already biased survey.  

But let us take a more careful look at the Board’s letter and their RC3 "Options Review" charts. In their letter to SCA homeowners, here is what the Board wrote:

“Data shows both facilities are significantly underutilized leading the Board to question the need for a 3rd building and the corresponding increase in assessments of as much as $200 per year when the building comes on line." (Emphasis added)

That is our Board telling us the state of their thinking about our new recreation center. For practical matters and in reality, that’s all anyone is going to read—there will be an increase in dues of as much as $200 per year. Most folks will read no further. Forget about the 17 pages of 30+ exhibit charts. But, the really big question to answer is whether the exhibits actually support what the Board has told us in their letter about the projected "$200" dues increase. Actually, the answer is an emphatic, "NO!" As strange as it may sound, the accompanying Exhibits contradict the Board’s "$200" assertion. That contradiction raises the question not only about the Board’s motivations but also about whether the survey results can be relied upon by anyone for anything other than scrap paper.

Let's get down do what the Exhibits actually tell us. The first thing you must know, as clearly stated in the Exhibits, the completion date for the third recreation center is in the summer of 2008. That means the building will be on line in 2008 and on line for the full calendar year 2009. According to the “Financial Comparisons for Construction of Recreation Center #3” chart #29 on page 15 of the Exhibits, it states as follows:

“Total assessment could range from $1,000 to $1,080 in 2009 when building is complete, depending upon the impact of inflation and income from re-sales (NMF/AEF collections).”

That statement equates to an increase of $100, not $200.

In contrast to the Board’s assertion that falsely represents the impact on dues of constructing RC#3 of as much as $200 per year, nowhere do the Board's Exhibits support the Board's assertion. In fact, those Exhibits directly contradict the Board’s statement about the estimated impact “when the building comes on line.” As stated in the paragraph quoted above, that Exhibit clearly shows the estimated impact in 2009 in the range of assessments being $1000 to $1080, which corresponds to a potential increase of from low of $60 to a high of $140 a year, or an average of $100 a year. That amount is exactly what residents were told at the meeting last Wednesday evening.

So, why does the Board's letter to all homeowners state that the impact of RC3 will be $200 per year? That one glaring misrepresentation from a projected dues increase of $100 to an increase of $200 per year in the Board’s letter places their survey results in the category of junk data. Survey results will mean little to nothing, especially if the homeowner was responding to the Board's false claim that the projected impact will be an increase by as much as $200 per year. Did the Board deliberately intend to misrepresent their own data, or did they intend to mislead the homeowners?

So, is there anything else? In conducting the planned survey, was the Board looking for some cover for their subsequent actions, or were they truly interested in receiving resident input on what to do? Either way, what the Board had done in this survey effort was to assure themselves of getting neither. Why?  

The Board will not get any meaningful results for two reasons, apart from their glaring $200 misrepresentation: 1) the planned survey, essentially rushed through and without community input, was ill conceived and seriously flawed; and 2) it was unbelievably biased in one direction only. Of course, having designed the survey, the Board knows very well what they were looking for in a response. Having structured the preamble, the questions, and the data in the handout that accompanies the survey form, the Board has done exactly what they intended—to obtain an artificial, biased result that in the end will lack any validity or meaning on which to make a critical decision that will affect the future lifestyle of the entire Community.

Any survey the results of which could have a major lifestyle impact, as well as having important financial implications, that presents only one side of the argument must be viewed as seriously flawed and suspect.

The Board Justifies their Actions

To justify their extraordinary efforts on this matter, the Board first told us that they were influenced by residents who wrote in opposition to the construction of the new recreation facility, questioning its need and current utilization issues. The fact that these residents lived along the streets bordering the new center was not considered relevant.

When members of the audience who live in Shadow Canyon and Black Mountain Villages, close to the new center, rose to counter that impression, the Board quickly reached further into their bag of reasons in an attempt to justify their faltering position. To bolster their case, the Board now argued that their decision was based on the declining usage experience of other and older Del Webb communities. The message was clear—those other Del Webb communities can enjoy a wide range and a great variety of amenities while we at Sun City Anthem do not deserve to do so here.

Although several hundreds of residents attended the meeting, not one person spoke in favor of or in support for what the Board was doing. If a vote were taken that evening on accepting the Board’s resignations, there would be no doubt on the outcome.

Resident's Respond to the Board

The Board seemed oblivious to a range of resident-provided objections, objections that the Board had simply failed to consider in their strictly “data” only justification and presentation, as if everything was simply a matter of accounting and numbers. As a result, Board president Favil West seemed ever so anxious to summarily dismiss a variety of resident objections to the Board’s hurried and ill conceived proposal. As addressed at an open mic session, it was evident the Board had failed to adequately consider a significant number of points and issues bearing on this matter:

• Resident living in the nearby Shadow Mountain and surrounding areas rose to say that they were planning to use the new recreation center.

• The failure to give any recognition to the very important social aspects of an additional multi-purpose recreation center, one that would help to tie the homeowners who live in the three villages+ that encircle the new center.  

• A new and needed amenity for seniors was planned—the warm water pool that could meet current needs of those suffering from arthritis and similar conditions, as well as meeting our future needs as the Community ages.

• The addition of a more traditional lap swimming pool, which would attract those living nearby as well as swimmers who cannot use the other pool when it is down for one reason or another.

• Residents living close to the site claim they were promised that R3 would be built.

• Some claimed that the aforementioned promise was a direct inducement for them to buy.

• No believable justification was given for Board's action.

• Some disputed the usage figures as unreliable and that a one-week survey period in February did not fairly represent Community usage on which the Board could reasonably rely on to make a long-term lifestyle commitment of this importance.

• Usage statistics for the fitness machines failed to reflect that members frequently leave upon finding that the machines they want to use are in use.

• The failure to factor in the addition of up to 1,000 new homeowners that will be living in homes not yet built.

• The failure to take account of a substantial number of homes not generating facility usage because they are owned by absentee investors, homes that in the future will be occupied by homeowners who bought the properties to live in them.

• Failure to give recognition that the new recreation center will add real property value to the overall Community.

• Current residents are dissatisfied with peak period demands for existing facilities; the new center will provide needed relief.

• Failure to take into account the large numbers of working people who when retired will begin to make more use of our facilities.

• Residents have already paid for the recreation center in the prices that were paid for their homes.

• Some disputed swimming pool usage figures, claiming the indoor pool is always busy at normal hours.

• No one in attendance who spoke was concerned about a projected increase of about $8 a month in dues, especially given the fact that there have been no increases in the 5 years since the third recreation center was planned in 2002. [Factored over time until 2009, that $100 increase in annual dues actually amounts to an effective annual increase of only $14 a year for a new recreation center.]

• There was no data presented to justify any of the assessment projections, let alone what appear to be erroneous if not outrageous operating projections for RC3 for the year 2010.

• Concern was expressed about the survey being slanted:

1. Non-facility users (the 80% of residents) may view any increase in dues as undesirable;
2. Residents living away from the new facility may view the new facility as a drag on their assessments, compared with those living nearby the new center, outvoting those who live closer to the new center;
3. Biased and inadequate data was presented to justify the Board’s decision.

• Given the magnitude of the Board’s proposal on the Community’s future lifestyle, a question was raised concerning whether a majority vote of all residents was required.

• If, as some anticipate, the number of Charter Clubs will continue to grow, there will be insufficient meeting room space available to accommodate all Clubs at hours of the day suitable to our members.

• In the event the Board votes to recommend the cancellation of RC3, the Board faces a prospect of a lawsuit by residents of the Community.

A Recognition of Past Failures

Does the Board's current "outlook" of a jump in future dues increases actually represent their recognition of past failures of the Community to adequately address the future funding of RC3 in a more responsible way? In other words, the Board has had five funding years to consider the financial implications of RC3. What has the Board done to meet those future needs over the past five years? Absolutely nothing—the Board has effectively ignored those needs, instead, proudly proclaiming each year that there are no dues increase. Now, five years later, the Board is caught with having to justify a future significant jump in assessments. How can they avoid that projected jump in dues? Ask the Community to forego the new recreation center. What utter gall.

According to our present Board, the cost to the Community from past mistakes of current and previous Boards is to recommend that RC3 not be built. That's simply incredible. Think about it, the agenda here is to get the Community to give up a new recreation center simply because past Boards had failed to deal responsibly with the future funding needs of RC3. That simple observation should be of some concern.

How Should Residents Respond to the Survey

1. Complete the Survey form.

2. As I understand the survey and its implications for the Community, the only response for me is an unqualified:

YES  (Build Rec. Center #3)

3. Remember to include you membership number written on the outside of the form.

4. Submit your completed survey form in the envelope provided by mail or hand deliver by Friday, 9 March.

Why the short-turn around time on the Survey?

To avoid any potential conflict with the upcoming election cycle.

_________________________________________________________________________