Amenities

The 50 for 50 “Formula”!

Residents purchased their homes in Sun City Texas largely because of the Amenities. We bought the lifestyle provided by its many facilities, landscaped grounds and preserved green areas. We paid a premium for our homes to obtain the accompanying amenities as comparable houses outside the entrance sell for substantially less. So, we are able to enjoy the use of the many facilities and feel comfortable that the value such amenities add to the investment in our home.

A few years ago, the Developer described their “Amenity formula” for Sun City Texas in terms of Air Conditioned square ft. per roof top. That “formula” [18 sq. ft. x 5000 roof tops] resulted in our current existing 90,000 square feet of air conditioned facilities plus the pavilion, trails, sports areas and various non-air conditioned buildings and facilities. See “Amenity formula” chart http://scinform.blogspot.com/2006/02/local-news-and-dw2500-amenities.html

More recently, at the March 2006 Town Hall meeting, there was a reference to a 26,000 to 29,000 square foot building plan that the Developer was using elsewhere , for the new amenities/fitness center , including indoor track and “a really large pavilion along the creek—one 4 times as large as the current one.” The proposed pavilion and fitness Center have seemingly shrunk during the past year.
Now some have suggested, including the Developer, if you build more amenities it will cost more to maintain those facilities. If any amenities built there will be added expense, but there will be 50 percent more homes to cover roughly comparable roof top costs.


The 50 for 50 “Formula”!
Resident’s formula is straight forward – a 50% increase in roof tops should be accompanied by a 50% increase in amenities.

Much discussion by the Developer and Property and Grounds has dealt with tradeoffs for types of amenities [pickle ball vs. tennis court] but not whether the total package is comparable to what is currently available for the existing 5000 rooftops. The Survey did not offer the choice of less or more amenities.

A cursory review of the amenities proposed would suggest that proposed amenities fall considerably short of the value and scope of existing amenities per roof top. See charts below.

--I have formally requested Property and Grounds Committee to better clarify and quantify the approximate value and scope of the Developer Amenity Proposal compared with current amenities in place on a roof top basis.

--Be assured, if you elect me as your Resident Board member, I will work with all the resident groups and clubs as well as Property and Grounds and the Developer to assure that our amenities are comparable to what was promised and is currently available to residents on a roof top basis.

If amenities for the new 2500 homes are materially short of the broad scope of our current amenities it would pose serious lifestyle and financial issues for existing residents.Not only would our current lifestyle be diminished by overuse from the additional population; home values could be negatively impacted by a reduced level of per roof top amenities.






----Compared With----

Golf—a new way forward

The Golf courses provide open space, beautiful vistas and great playing enjoyment. Despite the serenity, golf operational issues have not been without controversy.

Many of these issues cumulated in 2005. Losses from golf operations were increasing despite more golfers; desired tee times were less available; and operating costs were ever mounting to substantially more than costs at other local courses. Even non-golfers were not immune. Ponds that had been previously stocked for resident enjoyment were closed to fishing at all times and hikers and birdwatchers were banned from path use even during hours of closure.

Proposals were many and actions were taken, but they too met with controversy. Proposals to cut costs were ignored; alternative green fee proposals were advanced but were adamantly rejected; a new tee time scheduler was adopted but over continued objection. Substantial price increases for Pass and Card holders were proposed by the various Governance Committees in late 2005. But, this action met outrage from golf pass holders and was rescinded by the Developer. The Developer then covered the $200+k golf operating loss during 2006.
The Community Association outsourced Golf operations and pro shop to EAGL in September 2006. EAGL’s experienced management team has already reduced operating costs and increased the number of available tee times.

Past is history but helps provide perspective. http://scinform.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html
See --Golf and Cost…..In Search of a Solution

My overriding objective with Golf, as with the Restaurants, always has been that these businesses [at build out] need to operate on a breakeven basis in order to lessen the need for Resident Assessment increases.

With EAGL management coming on board to improve operations and with the Golf Committee focus on matching revenue with costs, they seem to have gotten the current balance about right. Revenue for the first quarter was a bit low but reduced expenses kept the golf operations on the plus side.

A note on Green fees
Annual passes and high volume cards have merit as they provide a stable base of revenue unaffected by inclement weather. Concurrently, pricing for low volume card and daily players along with tee scheduling must be competitive with local Courses. That delicate balance must be in place to avoid significant Sun City player leakage and revenue to other local courses. Otherwise, all green fees will spiral upward. Additionally, some of the former Golf task force members have suggested further examination of some equipment rental contacts as well as a reduction in number of rental carts for potential costs savings.


If it is working and a breakeven is doable in 2007, I say don’t break it. There are, however, future issues to address.

A new approach going forward
If I am elected I will recommend that the Finance Committee and the Board act to segregate financial accounting of Legacy Hills and White Wing Golf courses from that of the HOA and the new 3rd Golf course.

I will further propose that all losses associated with the 3rd course be funded by the Developer until sufficient new players are available to support a breakeven operation. The mechanics of this could be achieved by assigning all current player revenue to LH and WW operations and any new player revenue to the 3rd course.

It is important that any operating losses related with the 3rd golf during the early stages of operation not be used to (a) significantly increase green fees or (b) homeowner dues. The third golf course during early build-out is the developer’s marketing program, not ours.


I will further propose that any excess revenue from golfing operations at LH and WW be retained to be utilized in golf operations only. This would permit the building of a “rainy day” contingency fund to bridge unusual inclement weather periods. Currently, income from prepayment of annual passes and cards is being utilized at year end to fund past due HOA salary and benefit accounts payable. This is not a good business practice for Golf or the HOA.

The golf courses will continue to be treasured assets in the years ahead and I suspect controversies over how best to manage the courses to everyone’s satisfaction will continue as well. It is important that golf operations not pose a burden for non-golfers and that should be easily avoided given the excess demand for rounds played.

A more difficult challenge for golfers will be to manage the excess demand for golf rounds on sctx courses in a way that achieves financial success while balancing the desires of various golfing groups. If we work together on the issues without impugning each others motives, it would go a long way toward finding reasonable and rationale solutions.

I would appreciate your vote and support. You can support me by scheduling meetings with your friends and neighbors—Thanks!
Jack Stroobandt

Our Money – Our Future

It was recently announced that the Community Association had a $2.3 million net working capital deficit as of year-end 2006. This serious cash shortfall means that our Community Association cannot pay staff salaries during several months of 2007 without short-term temporary loans from Pulte. These advances by Pulte are then liquidated near year end by prepaid Golf Annual and Punch Card fees and Homeowner Association dues. While Pulte is still here at Sun City building homes, they have indicated cash shortages will be covered. So what is the problem? They will be gone in a few years and a larger problem will be exclusively ours!

There are many reasons for the shortage; however, the key reason relates to the method the Developer has used to calculate their annual operating payment to the Community Association. The CCRs (Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions) provide the rules by which the annual payment is to be made and the CCRs define the various terms.

It seems clear from the CCRs that the Developer should pay the Community Association annual operating deficit for any year that one exists. However, as they say, the devil is in the details.
In 2005 the Community Association had an operating deficit of $756 thousand; but the Developer paid zero toward that normal operating deficit. The rationale from the Developer was in the details of how the various terms are defined. But, does the right to do it make it right?

This cash shortage is not just some accounting entry; it has a real impact on all residents. The Finance Committee calculated that the shortage equates to $466 per rooftop. This issue is so serious that, I believe, prospective home buyers, should be advised.
Evidently, the issue has been known for some time; however, very little information was disseminated about it until March 2007. Most residents did not know of the issue or the magnitude of the problem.

The resolution of this issue is clear – it rests either with the Developer or the Residents. Given the very serious nature of this issue, I recommend:

1. The CCRs be changed immediately so that this issue does not continue – and we do not go further in the hole in future years.

2.The Developer should compensate the Community Association for the $2.3 net working capital deficit

3. The entire issue should go to arbitration if there is not a quick resolution of the issue.

4. That the residents not be asked to pay huge special fees in order to solve this financial issue.

5. The amount of this shortage be reported every month in Sun Rays so that all residents can be regularly informed of the magnitude of the issue and the progress toward solving it.

This issue is important to the future of our community. We need leaders who represent the residents and will stand firm to help solve this issue quickly and correctly. Your choice is important in the upcoming Board member election. If elected as Resident Board Member, I pledge to represent the residents and help push this issue through.
Jack Stroobandt

Let's Back Jack

We believe the Residents need a strong, effective voice to protect our interests over the remaining years of build-out of Sun City. We are asking you to support:

Jack Stroobandt for the Community Association Board of Directors.

Jack has a proven record on behalf of Sun City Residents! A few examples of looking out for us by protecting our Community and saving us money are highlighted below.

Tax Freeze—Please check your recent tax assessment notice—if you are age 65 or disabled, your real estate taxes for the City and County, have been frozen thanks to Jack’s efforts on the Proposition 13 initiative.

Connectivity—Commercial and high density residential developments that are planned immediately to the NW and to the NE of SCTX would have dumped traffic directly into Sun City neighborhoods if it were not for Jack’s leadership limiting traffic access to Sun City. [This effort was initially opposed by the Developer.]

Reserves – Following the discovery of a precipitous drop in the CA Reserve Fund account—$1.8 to $1.2 million at year-end 2004—Jack met with the Developer to seek a meaningful legally binding agreement for the restoration of reserve funds and to boost the proposed commitment from 60% to 70% of defined assets –the national standard.

Out-Sourcing –Following losses for golf and restaurant operations well in excess of a million dollars in 2004&2005 and the Board’s proposal for more fee and Resident assessment increases, Jack mounted an effort to Lease restaurant operations and to contract with an experienced Golf Management firm to efficiently operate the courses. [See http://scinform.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html for details]

Open meetings –Meetings are generally now open; residents can voice their concerns and CA records are generally available to Residents. Hard to believe, but in 2005 and before, these elementary conditions of governance were not afforded to Sun City Residents until Jack initiated his efforts regarding Transparency.
[See http://scinform.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html for details]

Open Elections- When the Developer changed the bylaws to eliminate the rights of residents to nominate Resident Board Candidates, Jack campaigned for open elections for Resident Board members. The CA Board approved in early 2006.
[See http://scinform.blogspot.com/2006/03/progress-looking-forward.html for details]

Jack Stroobandt has stated many times “these things could not have been accomplished without the active support of Residents, including Residents on the various Governance Committees.” We would add –when things were not happening, Jack provided the leadership catalyst to move the issues to resolution.

We need Jack Stoobandt as a CA Board Member--Residents need an effective voice.
Results do matter!

Roby Sloan –spokesperson for Let’s Back Jack