FROM SUBSCRIBER EDITION of the Sun City Independent
Posted Thursday, May 12, 2022 7:00 am
By Rusty Bradshaw
Mail | Twitter: @SunCitiesEditor
Subscriber Exclusive
https://www.yourvalley.net/
Mountain View debate continues in Sun City; Residents continue to request changes
Despite the lifting of a moratorium on signing any contracts for the Mountain View Center, residents continue to ask that it be extended.
The center is targeted for a total rebuild that would include a performing arts center, a gymnasium, and a resort-style pool. General plans for an initial phase of construction were RCSC board approved in June last year. However, the board approved in January a 90-day moratorium on signing any contracts for the project. The delay, according to board member Allan Lenefsky who proposed it, was intended to give new board members a chance to learn the details of the project.
Once the moratorium was lifted, RCSC officials directed CCBG Architects to begin work on a detailed plan based on the general plan approved last year.
But resident John Fast called for an extension of the moratorium during the May 9 member/board exchange meeting.
“RCSC should prepare a master plan for all its facilities, including Mountain View. “This would provide for an analysis in detail of the needs for all users.”
He believes there is no urgency to proceed with the Mountain View project.
But he said a moratorium did not mean a period of inaction. He advocated for researching the possibility of creating a sports complex at Mountain View that includes a gymnasium, pickleball, mini-golf, swimming, and others.
“Extending the moratorium could restore trust between all parties,” Fast said.
Resident Don Schordje said a theater and pool were the top two items residents wanted at the Mountain View location-based on comments in two town hall meetings in 2018.
“A gym and pickleball never came up,” he said. “A theater has always been a part of the plan.”
Schordje said if the Mountain View project is delayed any further it would lose its place in the preservation and improvement fund budget. “After 12 years it would lose its location and funding,” he said.Fast believes the performing arts center should be decoupled from the Mountain View project and built in another location closer to the center of Sun City to allow easier access to all.
Sue Wilson, RCSC board member, said following the town hall meetings several emails were received by RCSC officials requesting a gym at the Mountain View site and that is why it was added. Kat Fimmell, RCSC board member, agreed with another location for the theater and suggested the Lakeview Center site, as that facility is also planned to be rebuilt in the future.“I am 100% behind a theater,” she said. “It would benefit Sun City by being a standalone facility. It could be our crown jewel.”
To view the presentation by Mr. Fast, CLICK HERE.
Do you have any thoughts? Please leave a comment.
13 comments:
What a spectacular presentation put together by John Fast. It is stunning to me to see a member take on such a project. His efforts beg the question, did the board/management/ad hoc committee go to this length? If not, why not?
Sun City is filled with smart people, RCSC members who have all but been shuffled off to the side lines as a small group work to find a small solution to a challenging issue. It truly is time to restore the sense of community and the belief that Sun City is best served when it is inclusive rather than exclusive.
I was cheered by the quality AND the enormity of Mr. Fast's presentation. His passion: unmistakable. His intent: equally so. The exciting conclusion of this excellent and well-considered presentation? Happy, satisfactory and BEST PART, A Project that bears no promise or threat of bankruptcy. When one of eight rec centers occupies a a significant place on budgets 10 years out, I believe we can talk "fiduciary responsibility." It seems we have FIVE people in All of Sun City making decisions FOR US ALL. They Know what No One Else does. Oh, really.
Mr. Fast's excellent Power Point presentation came with Footer on every page: "THE EFFORT INVESTED IN 'GETTING IT RIGHT' IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DECISION." Not only sensible, but pragmatic as well. Why don't we all have this aphorism in common?
Kristi Svendsen
As Tom Marone will tell you, under Robert’s Rules of Order a previously defeated motion (a moratorium extension) cannot be brought up again, consequently Mr. Fast’s slick presentation is moot.
I have read the presentation via the link on this site and aside from the flowery corporate language, he knows very little about heavy construction. Running two projects at the same time, I.e., Mountain View and the Players Taj Mahal, is complex. Mountain View being an older building in all likelihood has asbestos and requires abatement which I’d not cheap and no other construction activity might be suspended. At.the Bell Taj Mahal, there would have to be water, sewer, electrical, cable and communication wiring which requires underground work which is, from my experience, the most potentially expensive work on a project. Biggest factor, you don’t know wha is down there. Whatever the final contract price, RCSC would have to add an additional 10 - 15% contingency in case the feces hits the blades. As for Mountain View, keeping the center open while construction proceeds is really not a good idea. Tell me the people enjoying the pool and getting melanomia from sunbathing are going to ignore the dust and noise and what about the golfers at SCGC on these points. There is also no guarantee that the sum of the parts will be less than total.
This is why I have stated SCA really needs a person knowledgeable in these areas.
Have fun storming the castle.
So we are clear Dave, John Fast is not a member of the Advocates. He shared his efforts regarding Mountain View with us when the president wouldn't show it when he handed it out to the directors. As far as anything being moot, we'll see when the price tags start rolling in. I suspect everyone is in for a rude awakening.
I am curious, as a former board member, are you in favor of a project of this scope? Does it make sense to see 40 or 50 million dollars committed to Mountain View? Wouldn't a stand alone theater somewhere more in the center of the community make more sense?
The RCSC will in all likelihood have 100 million dollars available from the PIF over the next ten years; is the best we can do?
Bill, I apologize for believing John was somehow connected to SCA and you know what assumptions are…….
Speaking as an old underwriter, I truly believe that until the architect puts the price tag on this project be it one or two, the figures being tossed around are uneducated guesses at best. Since there still seems to be ongoing discussions as what exactly Mountain View will consist of, we really have no idea the cost until the scope of work is released with a true estimate from the architect for the RFB.
As for he center of Sun City for the stand alone theater, is that geographical or just based on the Bell parking lot for the theater? The issues I raised regarding the utilities for the Bell location are very real. You have the houses built, the rec center and all the commercial development along Bell with the utilities going every which way. Yes there are drawings for the utilities from Maricopa county but do you really trust them. I watched in Chicago as cassion contractors for three new buildings learned that the structures were being built on landfill from the Chicago Fire in 1871. This was not shown on any drawings on file with the City. The most notorious case was about 1991 when a contractor punched holes in long abandoned tunnels from the late 1800s that ran under the Chicago River but not shown on any drawings the City had. Granted these are extreme cases but illustrate how complicated and costly underground work can be.
As for a stand alone theater, I have some misgivings because of the nature of stand alone. Since it would not be associated with MV and space restrictions (I still believe the gym is a white elephant), the secret “secret goodie list” will make its appearance in line with my earlier comment about being a Taj Mahal just because of human nature. The first will be expansion of seating to close to a thousand, the other items to support that, think balcony and so on. I would be pleased to be wrong but you heard it first.
Look forward to any comments you might have.
D
I have one comment Dave that should be a given: Every rec center has it's footprint and every footprint should be the starting point for this discussion; where exactly does a 400 seat theater fit and work within the confines of the county parking codes?
I've been told, never seen them, the old asst gm did this study in 2009. If that's true they should be released for public consumption. To this day, if they exist, several board members haven't seen them. The rumor is, they didn't work at Mountain View. Especially when you throw in all the other stuff they have on the drawing board.
We've pissed away the first 20 years of PIF with half-ass planning and a general manager bound and determined to spend a boatload of money on golf. It's time to try and put together a comprehensive strategic plan using people that actually know what they are doing and building for our future.
100 million dollars is a lot of money to leave to folks who are carpetbaggers or in over their heads.
What I will tell you Dave is this, a defeated motion cannot be brought up again in the same session...but each meeting of the board is a separate session meaning the motion can, in fact, be offered at the next meeting of the board.
Regardless of what Dale Lahrer said at a previous meeting when she stated that the boards session lasts one year, it's just not true. First of all, read the definition of a meeting in Robert's Rules (8.4) which clearly explains the difference between a meeting and a session and the fact that the bylaws must state the fact that the session lasts the entire year.
Here's what Robert's Rules says in 8.4:
In a permanent society whose bylaws provide for regular weekly, monthly, or quarterly meetings that go through an established order of business in a single afternoon or evening, each "meeting" of this kind normally completes a separate session....THis rule is the common parliamentary law and holds except where the bylaws provide otherwise"
Tom, I bow to your expertise as you bow to mine.
In regards to YOUR "expertise", you won't be seeing me bow until I see the results of the Ad Hoc Bylaws Committee.
I find it a little disturbing that if you don't understand the difference between a "meeting" and a "session", then how can you make sure that the Bylaws comply with Robert's Rules of Order which is the stated parliamentary authority in the current Bylaws?
Not trying to pick on you but you really need to understand how one document affects the other! There are things being done at the board meetings that aren't currently permissible because they are not specified in the Bylaws. It's no big deal to put them there, but you need to know that they should be!
First off Tom, I extend an olive branch and again you insult me again. I would like to give you a typical Chicago response but it isn’t worth it.
I understand legal construction and always have my Black’s handy for assistance, do you have one or is Robert’s your god? I also severalability, conflict of statutes, or in your case, bylaws and anything pretty much legal.
This is the last you will hear from me on the bylaws as I am sworn to confidentiality, something I take very seriously and have since I worked for legal aid fifty years ago.
They will be ready when they are ready.
Meeting, A coming together of persons;an assembly. Particularly, in law, an assembling of a number of persons for the purpose of discussing some matter or matters in which they have a common interest. People v Mintz 106 Cal. App.725, 290 P 93, 100.
Session. The sitting of a court, Legislature, council, commission, etc., for the transaction of its proper business. Hence, the period of time, within any one day, during which such body is assembled in form, and engaged in the transaction of business, or, in a more extended sense, the whole space of time from its first assembling to its prorogation or adjournment sine die. Rally’s v Wyland 40 Okl. 323, 138 P. 158, 162.
Yes, I do believe I understand the difference.
I have no issue with your knowledge of construction but if you truly understood the difference between a meeting and a session you would have never made the statement regarding when a motion can be presented again.
I will patiently wait for the draft copy of the amended bylaws and consenting and descending comments from the committee members to see where the mindset of the committee went. Are they for the Members or the corporation.
Dave, go back to the April 1 blog and read the 2 attached documents I sent to Allan.
Post a Comment