Thompson: Should RCSC fees be refunded, reduced in Sun City?

Posted 7/30/20

While discussion of the RCSC annual fees controversy appears to have died down, the continued antipandemic measures prompt me to offer my input.

To Our Valued Readers –

Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe.

For $5.99, less than 20 cents a day, subscribers will receive unlimited access to the website, including access to our Daily Independent e-edition, which features Arizona-specific journalism and items you can’t find in our community print products, such as weather reports, comics, crossword puzzles, advice columns and so much more six days a week.

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

Thompson: Should RCSC fees be refunded, reduced in Sun City?

Posted

While discussion of the RCSC annual fees controversy appears to have died down, the continued antipandemic measures prompt me to offer my input.

Many residents believe that the annual fees levied by RCSC should be partially refunded or reduced for next year. I count myself among them. The pat answer to this request is a resounding “No” from the Board of Directors, who explain that the fees are a contractual obligation we assumed when we moved into Sun City. The Board avers this obligation exists whether facilities are used or not.

So far, so good. However, my understanding is that a contract consists of an agreement between parties, which is enforceable by law. Implicit is the notion of a “quid pro quo”; I give you “something” and you give me “something” in return. The “somethings” are spelled out in detail in the formal document which memorializes the contract. Both parties’ signatures are required to validate the contract.

I have in my possession, as should we all, a copy of my contract with RCSC, which has been recorded with Maricopa County. Sure enough, I have agreed to pay “the annual property assessment…regardless of …[my] use or non-use” of RCSC facilities. What is missing is any reference to the availability of these facilities for me to use; the implication seems to be that non-use is voluntary. Also in the contract, RCSC agrees “[T]o operate the recreational facilities for…homeowners and residents…” who are qualified users. Quid equals money, quo equals access to facilities.

By opting to shut down the facilities but continue paying nonfunctional employees, RCSC is in breach of contract and is probably misdirecting funds. By virtue of the fact that the facilities are unavailable for me to use denies me the option of using or not using; RCSC is not operating the facilities for my benefit, but is instead using the money to compensate idle employees. I restate my demand for a partial refund, pro-rated on a monthly basis, and abatement of the assessment until full operation resumes!

Comments