subscribe: Posts | Comments

SCW Governing Board receives input on revised tennis court project plans


The Recreation Centers of Sun City West Governing Board thanks the nearly 300 residents who attended Thursday’s public forum on the proposed R.H. Johnson Tennis Court renovation.

The forum was the second scheduled to gather community input about the project, which has gained widespread community interest after a petition with more than 1,000 signatures was gathered demanding the project be shelved until residents could vote on the matter.

Most of those who spoke at Thursday’s session seemed to appreciate changes made to the plan – or clarifications expressed about the plan – that were the original reasons for the petition. Specifically:

  • The plan calls for only eight of the 15 courts to be repaired in the next fiscal year, at a cost of $961,477; not the $2 million for 15 courts that has been circulated. Should the eight courts be well used and demand require it, the second phase would include the additional seven courts. Upgraded lighting would be installed in both phases.
  • The Tennis Club would fund any social area enhancements in the central plaza. This was a major point for those who spoke at the first forum on behalf of the petition. Staff has since met with the club, who has agreed to fund any such enhancements.
  • The Kuentz Tennis Courts still have a couple years of good use in them before the ProBounce will need replacing. At that time, the Board will evaluate whether those courts need to be repaired, or repurposed to something else. In the meantime, the Kuentz courts will be needed to accommodate tennis play if the R.H. Johnson courts are renovated.

The Board met in Executive Session after the forum to receive legal advice from the Association’s attorney on the petition. No action was taken. A Special Meeting of the Board is scheduled for 9 a.m. Thursday, May 18, in the Social Hall, 19803 R.H. Johnson Blvd. The public is invited to attend. During that meeting, the Board will adjourn to Executive Session, then return to the meeting to vote on whether or not to hold a special election immediately following.

  1. Over the past 35 years, how frequently has the annual member dues for SCW actually been lowered from one year to the next?

    • Multimedia says:

      Although there have been years that the dues have not been raised, they have not been lowered. The years that there was no increase, we ended up having to make up for that in following years. A 3 to 5% increase on an annual basis gives the Association financial stability and the ability to maintain and provide facilities and programs for the members of the Association. It also prevents us from having to have special assessments.

  2. Brian Jones says:

    This is a good compromise solution. What data will be collected and used going forward to determine if and when the additional 7 courts get resurfaced?

    • Multimedia says:

      Hello Brian, since the project hasn’t been green lighted by the Board yet, exactly what systems will be utilized to follow the usage of the tennis courts has yet to be determined.

  3. We need to update some of the RHJ courts. Since the old pickleball court has been upgraded, we need to revisit what courts are upgraded first, (assuming the 2017 part of the project is given the go ahead) Those first renovated should be the ones west of the tower, adjacent to the newly renovated court. If the second half of the RHJ upgrade is not given approval, then you have all the renovated courts together, not split as the project is currently set to be implemented.

  4. Susan Polizzi says:

    What has been “circulated” is what has been proposed by administration in both Properties, and Budget and Finance Committees. If one goes to Financial Heading and looks up the budget for next year on page 27 one will find $961,477 for this coming year and $802,285 for 2018/19 in addition there is another $382,400 which has recently been broken down into two categories, $232,400 central plaza and landscaping and $150,000 club enhancement. According to my calculator this comes to a total of $2,146,162. The petition was not about maintenance and repair, but it was about community awareness, tennis court usage and club investment. I appreciate the discussions and the changes that have been made so far.

  5. Sandy Scanlan says:

    I think all of us are pleased that this issue was reassessed and hopefully revised. We are all in favor of keeping our facilities updated and in safe form; however, it is a waste of our money to update a facility that is not being utilized fully or which part of it could be repurposed for something more usable by the community. Having said this, let’s make the tennis courts that are needed the best!

  6. Darrel & Marsha Ashlock says:

    This was a great decision by the board. I guess they did listen to all the disgruntled residents of SCW

    • RCSCW PR says:

      Thank you Darrel and Marsha. The Governing Board has listened and the project has been revised, although the final decision on the petition has not been made yet. The Board will meet on Thursday to hear legal advice from the attorney on the petition, and possibly make a decision.

  7. Dudley Gibson says:

    Re Project impact on dues?

    You have stated the project will not increase dues since APF funds will be used.
    Are all capital projects in this years budget funded from APF/Reserves?

    If not, why not since APF does not cost anyone anything?

    • RCSCW PR says:

      Hi Dudley. Capital projects are those that cost at least $5,000 and will last 5 years or more. Capital projects are funded through reserves. Reserves are funded through APF, interest and excess revenues. So in a good year, if revenues are more than expected or expenses are lower than budgeted, those monies would end up in reserves as well. We also have changed our investment policy to increase revenues from that source. We have some years where we have unusual circumstances, such as the year we purchased water rights for $2.3 million. We had no choice, and it it was a good investment. That purchase, along with our usual capital expenditures, put us above our usual $4 million in capital expenses that year. The pool this year is another good example of that. We do not agree that APF does not cost anyone anything. We budget our capital on the philosophy that the majority is funded by new residents who are enjoying the investments made by their predecessors, and that those investments are necessary to keep this community in the shape that existing, new and prospective residents expect.

  8. Mary Beth says:

    Oh yay, they listened

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *