The June 3 ‘Sun City Huntley Updates’ email included the information that adult guests are now allowed at the Meadow View swimming pool all day every Sunday this summer. The notice stipulates that only one guest per resident is allowed, guests will be charged the usual $5, and this summer is intended to be a ‘trial period.’
We were surprised to learn this. Those of us who were here when the Meadow View pool opened will remember that we voted, by neighborhood, whether or not to allow guests. Our vote determined – by a healthy margin – that the Meadow View pool should be used by residents only. How can an issue like this that we residents voted on be arbitrarily changed without at least conducting another vote? And, at the end of this trial period, who and what will determine whether to continue the practice next year? Will the rest of us residents have a say at that time?
Asked how and why this was decided, board members’ replies have included “it should help alleviate over-crowding at the Prairie Lodge pool” and “residents wanted to bring friends to MVL.”
Question: if this change is made and our vote so easily overturned, how can we be sure this isn’t just the beginning? After all, if overcrowding at Prairie Lodge is eased on Sundays, the same can be said for Saturdays. Will that be next? The weekend afternoon crowds at Prairie Lodge pool are exactly why we residents who prefer a less crowded, quieter pool environment should have the Meadow View pool to ourselves. And how many residents asked to bring friends to MVL? Probably fewer than voted against that idea when the pool opened.
We really hope this change is temporary and there are not more to follow.
Pierce & Dena Shannon
Sun City residents
Go with the flow … or?
During the Resident Comment portion of the June 15 Board Meeting, two residents posed questions to the Board about the need for and the $331,335 cost of the waterfall reconstruction project. The Waterfall in question was part of the lush landscaped area located behind the Prairie Lodge and next to the outdoor swimming pool.
The 2016 Reserve Expenditure Budget included $500,000 for the project. The total 2016 Reserve Budget is $3,331,000.
The waterfall was shut down about two and a half years ago as a result of flaws developing in the original construction causing operational problems. Staff and the Facilities Advisory Committee continued to evaluate reconstruction options during the shutdown.
It is hard to recall whether any resident inquired at the 2016 budget community presentations about how much it costs to reconstruct a waterfall, and to ask if the reserve expenditure of $500,000 provide value to residents who may not even know the waterfall existed. The residents who now asked that question resurrected an inquiry that was long overdue.
At the May 4 COTW meeting, a motion was made and unanimously approved [7-0] authorizing Kane Brothers to COMPLETE the waterfall reconstruction WORK at a cost not to exceed $331,335. Whether COMPLETE THE WORK meant what it said or something that was not specified, created some ambiguity.
Using different language, the May 6 Executive Directorâs eBlast reported that the Board approved Phase I for DESIGN & RENDERING services only. That sounds more limiting than COMPLETE THE WORK.
Which is it?
Whatever the answer, maybe, just maybe, another redesign of the waterfall area could have been considered for a lesser amount, and maybe it was, but the residents will never know. None of the walkers who enjoy the area have not expressed any angst over the loss of the waterfall operation. There is no way to know how many walkers enjoy the scenic site, but itâs likely to be far less than there are residents who donât know about the area.
And maybe, just maybe, the shoreline problems that the Wildflower Lake fishermen have hoped to resolve could be funded with some of the $331,335 allocated for a waterfall.
At the June Board meeting, one of the lone inquisitors asked if the contract was a done deal. The Board Chairman responded that the Board was meeting with its legal counsel that day to consider the matter. The Billy Casper Golf corporationâs ownership of part of the projectâs boundaries was previously mentioned as a factor to be resolved prior to making final commitments.
So the questions remain:
Why spend that amount of money for a feature that has low visibility?
What actions did the Board approve?
What advice did legal counsel provide?
What is the status of the project?
Were any options other than a waterfall considered?
Jim Darow
Neighborhood 5
