Log in


Turner: Sun City a poor comparison for Sun City West recall committee


Regarding the recall campaign in Sun City West.
This continues to feel like an effort that is not being undertaken in “good faith.”

The recall committee continues to use Sun City as an example of prudent spending and good management. They ask us to look how much lower their fees are. Yet, the recallers failed to go deeper and find out what is really happening, or they know and chose not to tell us.

I took a look.

I was genuinely shocked to discover how bad the financial, operational and maintenance situation is at Sun City.

I encourage our Sun City West residents to view, from 17:45 to 52:00, the Sun City Oct. 26 governing board meeting. The final 2024 budget was presented.

You will see an admission that the current level of dues, that the recall committee points to over and over as an example of a well-run community, are in the real world inadequate to cover the costs of a very large maintenance and capital spending backlog.

An admission of underspending and neglect that means increasing dues for years. Here are some other problems, more at the link.
Sun City lost revenue because they were late passing their 2023 budget. Two months’ worth of renewal invoices were sent at the old, lower, rate.

There is $31 million in Sun City’s reserve fund. However, they need $25 million to rebuild a recreation center and $20 million for the golf course water reduction projects. The shortfall is $14 million.
Wages are rising like ours in Sun City West because staff turnover is 47%. As the CFO said: “It is extremely difficult to run an operation when you are losing half your employees in a year.”

Their building and infrastructure group is too small to manage the work to catch up with their maintenance deficit, so employee numbers are rising.

Sun City West has sufficient funds for our capital spending. Dues and fees fund an operational budget that provides a surplus. I cannot understand why the recallers think we should be like Sun City.
Vote “no” on the recall.