Comments on Coffee with the Board

July 9, 2026

Noteworthy Observations:

When Mr. Burkel was asked about a previous attorney advising the Board that Troon’s lack of CA HOA management company experience should rule them out, Mr. Burkel claimed he relies on an attorney for legal, but feels he has more business savvy than an attorney. This begs the question of how we ended up with such a poorly constructed Morrison/CCL agreement. Did no one bother to do a serious financial, operational, and business risk assessment before signing? 

Members asked how such confidential information was leaked? He made no comment, but his answer seems to confirm it was true.

Mr. Burkel indicated that he would prefer just one vendor to handle the restaurants, HOA, and the golf courses, but offered no explanation as to why the Troon negotiations do not include taking back the Food & Beverage from Morrison/CCL. The most obvious likely answer is that Troon does not want to do so because their contracts typically are based upon a percentage of the income. Since our HOA is closed to non-residents there is very little revenue opportunity to motivate them to do so. 

Mr. Burkel told the audience that the recall will cost the residents 15-20k. That is what the cost of the two most recent general elections have cost us. He should have refrained from comment until they got a cost estimate for the elector company. This election will be a simple recall  Burkel “yes or No”, if yes which candidate do you vote for. Much less complex and time consuming than the general election which lists the board candidates and 23 sets of District Delegate candidates, plus IRS vote, etc.  Even if it is $20,000 that amounts to a once time cost of less than $7.00 per household versus the $700,000 wasted on Morrison/CCL which equates to $ 212.00 per household. Mr. Burkel has offered no explanation of how the previous board could have allowed this to happen. We feel the likely cost will be closer to $10,000-$12,000. 

Mr. Burkel said the golf fees could only be increased per board approval. (Scary). Is he saying that this would be a no go with Troon if the actual agreement language does not specifically call not only Board approval, but a referendum from Sun Lakes members?

Several audience members attempted to tell cautionary tales of having lived in Troon facilities or been members of Troon controlled Country Clubs. Big increases in golf course fees and undesirable course maintenance were the result they described. No effort was made to reassure the audience that the Board was doing due diligence to uncover Troon’s recent past performance. Was the attorney or an independent investigator hired?

Past Board member McElwain demanded that the District 21 Newsletter not be allowed to be distributed. Presumably because it debunked her false claim that FSR somehow was involved in the door-fee issue with Spectrum dating to 2020, called attention to the Troon issue, and explained what the purpose of Sun Lakers for Accountability. She demanded that this be stopped was preposterous. Mr. Burkel indicated that he was addressing the issue with Gayle Bilek.  Sun Lakes is a zone where the right to free speech is suspended?

Mr. Katz addressed the issue of recall election timing indicating that it should not be done.  He was mistaken and does not seem to comprehend the Davis-Stirling rules associated with a 5% member initiated recall.  Once GAIN, board members should not be speculating until they have been duly informed by the electors selected. Katz gave misleading information to create the impression that it could extend until the next election window.

Mr. Burkel stated that the PAC will review the final draft of the Troon contract before it is

signed. Ms. Tasko said they would not do a review until after it has been signed. This would be a board decision bot that of either Burkel or Tasko individually.

Mr. Katz indicated that he had 22 bullet points that he considered scope of work items that he

was using to get incorporate in the contract. Not sure what Mr. Burkel and other board

members are using to ensure members’ expectations are being successfully addressed in the

contact negotiations. What about the other board members’ concerns?