Log in

RCSC gains clean sweep in lawsuit rulings

Some unresolved issues remain

Posted 10/10/19

The Recreation Centers of Sun City got a clean sweep in rulings on a lawsuit brought by a group of residents.

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers for as little as $5 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.


Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Current print subscribers can create a free account by clicking here

Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

To Our Valued Readers –

Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.

For $6.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.

Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.

Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.

Sincerely,
Charlene Bisson, Publisher, Independent Newsmedia

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor

RCSC gains clean sweep in lawsuit rulings

Some unresolved issues remain

Posted

The Recreation Centers of Sun City got a clean sweep in rulings on a lawsuit brought by a group of residents.
In an Oct. 10 ruling in Maricopa County Superior Court, Judge Roger E. Brodman ruled on a flurry of motions by both sides. The judge granted all motions for summary judgment made by RCSC attorneys and denied all motions made by attorneys for the plaintiff.
The rulings settled the major issues in the lawsuit, which alleged, among other things, that RCSC was not adhering to provisions of the Arizona Planned Communities Act, that the $3,500 preservation and improvement fee and $300 transfer fee was illegal according to the PCA, that RCSC officials were not following their own governing documents and that RCSC annual assessment fees were charged unequally.
The results were almost a foregone conclusion following legislation earlier this year that amended the PCA in such a way as to void a fall 2018 ruling that RCSC must comply with the Planned Communities Act. In a Sept. 6, 2018 ruling the Superior Court termed RCSC an association within the meaning of the act.
“In response to that ruling, RCSC successfully lobbied the Legislature to adopt SB 1094, which amended several provisions of the act, including the definition of association,” Mr. Brodman stated in his Oct. 10 ruling.
Because the definition was different at the time of the most recent ruling, the judge had little choice in ruling in favor of RCSC. He stated such in several clauses of the ruling.
“There is little doubt that SB 1094 was enacted to legislatively to overrule this court’s interpretation of the act,” Mr. Brodman stated.
As amended, the PCA excludes certain non-profit corporations from the definition of association. In the case of RCSC, the exclusion is because it oversees recreational activities and has no jurisdiction to enforce covenants, conditions and restrictions, including the community’s age restriction. Arguments by the plaintiff’s attorneys that RCSC officials do enforce the age restrictions through its facilities agreements did not sway the judge.
“The facilities agreements do not give RCSC any authority to enforce the zoning ordinances,” Mr. Brodman stated in the Oct. 10 ruling. “The plaintiffs may be correct that Maricopa County does not have exclusive authority to enforce its zoning ordinances, but they have cited no authority giving RCSC such power.”
In several clauses in the Oct. 10 ruling, the judge stated plaintiffs had not established as a matter of law to support their arguments.
Senate Bill 1094 started as House Bill 2374 to further define what communities qualified for the PCA. The bill did not get out of committee for a floor debate, but on the last day new bills could be introduced, it was brought to the Senate as a “strike everything” bill under Senate Bill 1094. The new bill passed in the House by a 33-25 vote then, May 1, passed in the Senate 17-11. Gov. Doug Ducy signed it into law May 7.
The original bill was introduced at the beginning of the legislative session by District 21 Rep. Kevin Payne (R-Peoria) and was supported by District 21 Sen. Rick Gray (R-Sun City) in response to Mr. Brodman’s ruling in a lawsuit brought by about 29 Sun City residents that the RCSC is subject to the Arizona Planned Communities Act.
The legislation was not without controversy of another sort. Mr. Gray was accused by District 16 Sen. David Farnsworth (R-Mesa) of making political threats to force him to vote for SB 1094.
Mr. Farnsworth said he sided with some homeowners who won a lawsuit about how those rec centers must be legally operated. But as the debate was to begin, Mr. Farnsworth told other senators of a conversation he had with Mr. Gray.

“He reminded me I was running for Corporation Commission and that if I continued to fight this bill there would be consequences,” he said.
Mr. Gray, for his part, did not dispute the conversation.
“As an elected official, if anybody wants to tell my constituents how I vote on something, I’ve got no problem with that,” he responded. “So my comment to him was everybody in Sun City will know you voted.”
Mr. Gray said if SB 1094 did not pass there would be sharp increases in annual fees because the organization would lose the authority to levy the one-time $3,500 “preservation and improvement” fee imposed each time someone buys into the community, a fee that raises about $500,000 per month.
Mr. Farnsworth had a different take on the effect of the judge’s ruling — and what would happen if it were overturned by the Legislature.
“To me, it’s a matter of property rights,” he said, saying that there are issues about who within the Sun City community can use the facilities.