Billiards Club Says Vote NO!
Today, some of the Billiards Club Members published a report that helps to clear up many misunderstandings about this explosive issue. We encourage members to comment on this situation and help the board understand your opinions on this key policy matter.
Here is the report–the Billiards Club recommends the Board vote against the Lifestyle Committee recommendation for the April 24th Board Meeting:
TO: Board of Directors Sun City Anthem Community Association, Inc.
SUBJECT: Whether the Sun City Anthem Billiards Club should become a private club?
DATE: April 18, 2008
On the advice of Barry Friedman, we have prepared this analysis of why we believe the SCA Billiards Club should not become a private club, with the expectation that it will be submitted to each of the directors so they can better understand our position prior to taking a vote on the proposal as has been presented by the Lifestyle Committee.
It is true that at the January 2008, quarterly meeting of the Billiards Club, the majority of the members present voted to have the Club become a private club. There were approximately 50 members voting in favor of the Club “going private”. However, it is vital that the directors understand the misconceptions that were disseminated at that meeting. We were told, emphatically, we had no choice….. If we did not consent, we could lose the room or our tournament time allocation could be reduced. If we agreed to become a private club, the Association would redo all of the felt on all 10 tables, re-level all 10 tables, provide the Club with new quality pool cues, and new and adequate lighting would be provided. It was these misconceptions that tilted the vote in favor of going private.
Once it was recognized we did have a choice, that we did not have to go private, most of the members who had voted to go private changed their opinions and signed the petition that was then submitted to the Lifestyle Committee. There were 65 signatures on the petition in the short time we had to prepare. The 4 past presidents all signed the petition. It was unfortunately too late for the Lifestyle Committee to take this into consideration.
If the Billiards Club was to become a private club:
· All of the expenses of operating the Club would now be borne solely by the members, resulting in an undue hardship for the Club.
· This would establish the principle that all other clubs – the Bocce Club, the Tennis Club, the Table Tennis Club, the Dance Club, the Aquacize Club and all the other clubs – must thereafter become private and maintain their own playing fields and equipment. We do not believe this was the intent of the Sun City Anthem Community. This would establish a gross inequity where the Billiards Club would be paying for all of its equipment and, at the same time, paying for a portion of these other clubs’ expenses through their homeowner dues. We do not believe the Board would tolerate such an inequity just to keep expenses in check.
· The intent of that room, which was negotiated with Del Webb (Bill Dively) and the Lifestyle Committee, was to always allow two tables to be available for open play during tournaments. This was in the spirit of the Billiards Room to be always open for all Sun City Anthem residents. This is why Del Webb and the Lifestyle Committee agreed to have ten tables in the room instead of the original eight that were offered.
· The Billiards Club is a very active club with tournaments six days a week. Many residents wish to play billiards (pool), but may not wish to partake in such a schedule. We do not believe these homeowners should be excluded from the opportunity of the use of that room and its equipment. Many of the tournaments currently utilize only 4 tables. This leaves a great number of tables available for open play during these tournaments.
· The Billiards Room is very popular, logging in over one thousand persons per month signing in to play. Locking that door and controlling entrance only to Billiards Club members is a potential administrative nightmare.
· We recognize certain clubs need to be private clubs because of safety and theft concerns. The Woodchips Club is an excellent example with dangerous and difficult equipment to operate. The Computer Club is also a good example with expensive equipment which can be easily stolen and removed from the room. The Billiards Club does not fall into either category.
Therefore, we sincerely petition the Directors of the Association to vote NO on the proposal to have the Billiards Club become a private club.
Hal Rosowsky Garth Clifford Dennis Eynon
Neil Schmidt David Bernstein (for all of the members)
7 Responses to “Billiards Club Says Vote NO!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 19, 2008 at 03:12
I agree,the tables equipment and such was bought with association money and intended for all residents of SCA not just the pool club.Like most residents I bought here because of the amenities that i could use without joining a club….
April 19, 2008 at 13:55
In my opinion the Billiards Club should be a private club like Woodchips, the Computer Club, the Sewing Club and so many other clubs. The reason is simple. With over 1,000 persons per month playing pool, the 10 tables in the poolroom need to be re-felted and re-leveled periodically at significant cost. The central question is straightforward: Who should bear this maintenance expense, the community at large or the people who cause the tables to need to be periodically re-felted and re-leveled?
Maintenance costs are very different from the costs incurred to create our recreation facilities in the first place. The cost to build bocce and tennis courts, the woodshop, the sewing room, the computer room and all of the other recreation facilities are capital costs that are then depreciated over the long life of the facility. A tennis court and the woodshop building, for example, have a useful life of 20 to 40 years. The primary reason our association has a reserve fund is to accumulate the money needed to pay to have our capital facilities kept in good repair over the very long run.
These capital costs are very different from maintenance costs. Maintenance costs are typically proportional to the level of usage a facility gets. For example, the more people that use the woodshop, the sooner the equipment will need repair or have to be replaced. These maintenance expenses are, appropriately I think, borne by Woodchips members. The club charges members annual dues of $25 so that the club will have the money it will need to repair equipment, to replace worn out machines, and to pay for consumables such as sandpaper and glue. Similarly, the Hiking Club charges dues in large part to pay for equipment repairs and replacement.
Why shouldn’t the pool players pay the cost to maintain their billiard tables? No one is suggesting that the Billiards Club pay the costs associated with building their facility. Nor is anyone suggesting that the club create a reserve fund to pay for roof repairs or exterior painting, which is capital expenses. We all paid for the building of our recreation facilities when we bought our homes and a significant portion of our quarterly association dues assessment is being put in a reserve fund to pay for the upkeep of our buildings.
However, like so many other clubs, the Billiards Club should pay the maintenance cost associated with re-felting and re-leveling the tables they get so much use out of. Equity demands that billiards players pay to repair the equipment that they, and they alone, wear out. It is as simple as that. With so many people using the pool facility, it will be easy to recruit poolroom monitors to open and close the facility daily and monitor usage of the tables. If the woodshop, the computer room, the sewing room, the arts and crafts room, and the ceramics room can do it, so can the Billiards Club.
For those who want to keep our dues low,
we need the Billiards Club
to pay their maintenance costs
as they go.
April 20, 2008 at 08:48
The movement to “privatize” the Billiards Club room is, unfortunately, more than likely only the beginning salvo. The amenities we “bought into” are slowly and somewhat quietly slipping away.
Probably of much, much greater significance will be a movement to “privatize” the pools and fitness center and walking track into an Anthem Health Club. Since, I am told, only about 1,700 of our residents use the combined facilites each month (on average) and the expenses for these facilities are the largest we have…a conversion to a health club with monthly fees of say $70 per month might well be the next step. Attendance/use would drop to about 800 per month…but $56,000 of revenue would be generated to cover maintenance expenses. My guess is the attitude is if you don’t use the facilities you shouldn’t pay for them. Of course one could always decide to use a commercial Health Club and Spa, couldn’t they?
Charging other clubs for use of meeting rooms would also likely be a way to “cover expenses”. For example the Current Events/History Club could be charged a $75 fee for each use of a meeting room….that would cover set-up and wear and tear of facilites…this would again be under the heading of if you don’t use it you don’t pay for it. When you multiply this approach, it will, of course generate a lot of revenue won’t it? No one ever guaranteed that room use would be free, did they?
Tennis players could be charged a small fee…say $5 per hour each, as well…to cover maintenance costs,etc.
I have no idea how those who play “games of chance” would be charged for use of the Gallery and meeting rooms, never mind the charges that someone might decide to levy for large luncheon and social group meetings. Would $500 per use of the ballroom be enough? Where would it stop?
April 20, 2008 at 21:38
It is amazing that a dissident group of 4 is accepted as speaking for the Billiards Club, when duly elected officers, carrying out their duties are not.
The Lifestyle Committee practiced due diligence in hearings on this issue, disregarded the basis for the maverick group’s petition as being factually false, and voted the matter of dedication of the Billiards Room to the Club on to the Board.
What follows is the Club’s Official position on the subject.
Reasoning and Benefits related to the dedicated use of the Billiards Room by the Billiards Club
• The club is currently guaranteed only 12 hours weekly of dedicated use for tournaments and formal club activity. Club use for tournaments and organized social play is twice that amount and growing. Additionally, demands from all quarters for facility use continue to grow – it’s important the Club accept dedicated use of the room to forestall any possible future loss of the room to non-Billiards use.
• We are the only club with a room designed for its use that DOES NOT have dedicated use, unlike the Computer Club, Woodworking, Arts and Crafts, etc.
• Dedicated club time must currently be requested through Administration and Lifestyle. Dedicated use of the room would allow us to make the decisions about the scheduling of programs without the submission of requests for room use, similar to how the Computer club decides its own monthly scheduling of events and training.
• Over 95% of the present use of the room is by club members, but the expense of the room is being borne by the Association. Dedicated use by the Club would shift the expense of operating the room and equipment to those who primarily contribute to its wear and tear.
• The Club’s control of equipment replacement and repair would allow us:
1. To move immediately to fix table and equipment problems.
2. To select the best vendors, equipment and table technicians to insure the highest quality playing conditions.
3. To insure, since it’s our money, that we would get the best prices for equipment and repairs.
4. To eliminate the need for the delays we currently encounter because of Facilities’ procedures for contracting out work.
• While it is club members who primarily occupy the room, divided opinion exists over whether members are subject to the club’s Code of Conduct at all times while in the room. Some have the opinion the club may only enforce its rules during the hours when Lifestyle has authorized the Club to function in the room. The argument: unless playing in tournaments, some members contend they are playing socially as members of the Association, not as the club members. Dedicated use would still that argument.
• Dedicated use of the room would allow the Club to fulfill its mission statement:
To be the best and most effective club in the community
To create and maintain the best playing conditions possible
To give us the highest quality Billiards room in any Del Webb Community.
Respectfully submitted:
Rex Weddle
SCA Billiards Club President
April 21, 2008 at 07:57
Concerning whether billiards club members should pay for the accelerated wear and tear on the felt and extra table-leveling due to heavy tournament playing?
It has been said to me, and I repeat here for the benefit of the community, that the Lifestyle Committee, Director Barry Friedman and a few billiards club members are wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water…
We are talking about giving exclusive control of “community property” to a small percentage of community members. If the “problem” is “unexpected popularity” of the billiards room that is caused by the “tournament play”, why not charge those members who enjoy the “special benefits” of intense and frequent “tournament play” an extra $xx a year to help compensate for the operating costs of the extremely heavy use of tournaments?
That could solve the “extra use/wear and tear problem” without converting the facility into a private club, and without forcing other members to pay extra to play on a casual basis.
And, while we are at it, why not review the charters of all of the clubs who currently have exclusive use of facilities, and consider how to open the “community facilities” up to casual use by members who do not wish to belong to that club?
Intelligent, well-meaning people should be able to find ways to permit limited casual use of every special room without being forced to join a club. This should be possible except for club-owned equipment. Community equipment requiring safety training could be supervised by the CAM after which a equipment certification card could be issued to the trained member.
Where there is the will, there are always ways to implement practical sharing of community facilities. Would that not be in tune with the “Sun City Anthem Unique Lifestyle” and community facilities that we thought we were buying into?
Perhaps these are some things worthy of thoughtful consideration by the new Board–before making a major change in the billiards room?
April 22, 2008 at 11:31
Concerning “privatization” of SCA amenities:
As many SCA homeowners have previously pointed out to me, SCA is a HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION–not a country club association. There is a HUGE difference!
For example, at Anthem Country Club all of the common facilities are reserved for the specific members who choose to pay extra to belong to that group or club. It is designed to be “privatized”. Everything is “extra charge” and practically nothing is free to be used by all Anthem Country Club residents.
On the other hand, SCA was specifically designed to provide a very broad range of amenities to all of the “homeowner-partners” who joined the SCA “Association”. SCA was not designed to become something like Anthem Country Club, and I believe we should resist those who advocate that kind of fundamental change.
Bottom Line: There are good ways to deal with the issues brought on by the unexpectedly high use of the billiards room. Our current governing rules and regulations, and our CAM contract with RMI can be used to solve the issues.
Moving toward “privatization” would violate the basic structure of the Sun City Anthem Master Plan, and I pledge to vote against such changes in concept.
April 23, 2008 at 07:08
Some members have asked me for financial data concerning the proposed “privatization of the billiards room” and I had to admit that I have not seen any.
Before anyone goes nuts over the following, let’s just understand that these are the kind of questions that someone opposing the idea would expect the Board to have answers to prior to a final decision. Some are a bit redundant; but, even if one was strongly in favor of the idea, should not at least some of the key financial points be given thoughtful consideration prior to such a important decision?
1. What would it cost per year to belong to a “private” billiards club, and what impact would that have on the numbers of SCA residents who would be willing to belong? Is it possible that club members would be reduced to a small number, and the club could be unable to maintain the room appropriately?
2. How would the transition and operating costs break down for the club to pick up and take charge of the room? Said another way, how much would the club have to immediately pay to the association to accomplish the change-over, and what kind of lease or operating agreement would the members need to sign to accept the responsibility for the room and its contents?
3. Would the billiards club need to incorporate, set up detailed financial records, take out liability insurance, etc. or would the association continue to accept all liability for the room and equipment?
4. What would the one-time costs to the association and the club be for the change-over? Would they include more than just table maintenance, pool cue replacements, chalk, and some shared janitorial costs? Or, would the club also have to buy the tables over a period of time?
5. Who has the costs and budget forecast data the club would have to spend to become private? Why has it not been made public? Do all club members know the financial considerations?
6. Do all club members know what those estimated costs would be and what would happen if they are insufficient to finish the task over the next year or so? Or, said another way, if the club fails to succeed as a private club, how does it revert back to open community operations?
7. What impact on the club membership would privatization have if the dues had to be raised to say as much as $200, or even just $100 a year? Has any kind of sensitivity analysis been considered on the impacts of such high dues levels?
8. What else should be considered from a financial perspective?
9. Where is the business case analysis covering such questions as above that B.J. Bonak, Barry Friedman and the Billiards Club Officers should have submitted on this critical aspect before submitting the issue to the board for a decision?