Report of Findings Troon Town Hall
Comparison of Troon / Board Town Hall Representations with the Executed Association Management Agreement
Sun Lakes Country Club Homeowners Association | October 2026
Purpose. This report compares material statements made during the October 6, 2026 Troon Town Hall with the operative language of the Association Management Agreement. It identifies statements that appear inconsistent with, materially narrower than, or incomplete when compared with the written agreement. It is a document-based review, not a legal opinion and not a finding of intent or misconduct.
Executive Summary
The principal concern is not whether the Board remains the Association's ultimate governing body; it does. The concern is that several Town Hall answers used that general proposition to describe Troon's contractual authority more narrowly than the agreement itself does. The agreement delegates substantial day-to-day authority over personnel, scheduling, vendor supervision, contract negotiation, purchasing, golf operations, charges, budgeted expenditures, and operational standards, while reserving selected approvals to the Board.
The strongest documentary issues are: (1) the categorical statement that the contract does not give Troon procurement authority; (2) the suggestion that procurement of any meaningful amount requires Board approval; (3) the explanation that a blank Exhibit D was naturally intended to be completed only after execution; and (4) the presentation of Board decision-making authority without equally explaining the significant authority delegated to Troon. The agreement's mandatory on-site transition-support obligation also warrants specific compliance tracking.
Detailed Findings
1. Procurement Authority
STRONG DISCREPANCY
Town Hall representation: The Board stated that the contract “doesn't give procurement authority to Troon” and that procurement of any measurable amount ultimately requires Board approval.
Agreement language: The agreement assigns Troon responsibility for negotiation of all contracts and supervision of vendors/contractors; requires Troon to assist with common-area purchase decisions; and expressly authorizes Pro Shop inventory management including purchasing merchandise, supplies, and services, with purchasing priority from Troon-selected vendors.
Finding: The categorical statement that the agreement gives Troon no procurement authority is materially false and misleading. A more accurate description is that Troon has significant delegated procurement and purchasing functions, while certain decisions remain subject to Board direction, budget limitations, or approval.
Sources: Town Hall transcript pp. 13-14 and 17-18; Agreement II.D.3-.5, II.E.2.a, II.L.
2. Spending Authority Within the Approved Budget
STRONG DISCREPANCY
Town Hall representation: The Board characterized procurement of any meaningful amount as ultimately requiring Board approval.
Agreement language: The agreement's financial provisions distinguish recurring contractual obligations and approved-budget items from irregular or unbudgeted expenditures. During the Town Hall, Troon itself explained that management can have authority to spend inside the approved annual plan, while outside-budget costs go to the Board.
Finding: The broad characterization obscures the practical delegation created once the Board approves the budget. Approval of the annual plan is not the same as separate Board approval of every later expenditure made within that plan.
Sources: Town Hall transcript pp. 12-14; Agreement financial/accounting provisions concerning approved-budget items, recurring obligations, and irregular expenditures.
3. Blank Exhibit D - Labor Costs Spreadsheet
STRONG DISCREPANCY
Town Hall representation: Members were told that Troon could not provide staffing/payroll information until November 1 and that the exhibit would be populated once Troon determined total payroll.
Agreement language: Section VI.a.8 says Exhibit D is “attached hereto and made a part hereof” and “sets forth total labor costs for all site personnel assigned as of November 1, 2026,” including payroll taxes, workers' compensation, health insurance, retirement contributions, and allowances. Article VIII.h identifies the Labor Costs Spreadsheet as an Agreement Document and places it second in the priority hierarchy. The executed Exhibit D page states only “Labor Costs Spreadsheet (see attached).”
Finding: The agreement does not, on its face, say Exhibit D may remain blank at execution and be created later. The issue is not merely whether payroll could change; it is why an expressly incorporated Agreement Document intended to summarize annual on-site labor cost was not completed in the executed copy disclosed to members.
Sources: Town Hall transcript pp. 13-14; Agreement VI.a.8, VIII.h, Exhibit D (p. 24).
4. “The Board Is the Decision Maker” vs. Delegated Management Authority
MATERIALLY INCOMPLETE
Town Hall representation: Troon repeatedly emphasized that the Board remains the decision maker and used that proposition to rebut concerns about Troon changing fees or community direction.
Agreement language: Troon recruits and hires management and non-management personnel (with express Board final selection of the General Manager); determines employee schedules and hours subject to approval for significant changes; supervises vendors; administers golf operations; establishes agronomic standards; manages golf instruction, events and marketing; and administers Pro Shop purchasing.
Finding: The Board remains the ultimate governing body, but the Town Hall formulation can mislead if understood to mean Troon merely advises the Board. The written agreement creates substantial delegated operational discretion.
Sources: Town Hall transcript pp. 3-4 and 17-18; Agreement II.A.1, II.A.11-.18, II.D, II.E.
5. Fees and Charges
MATERIALLY INCOMPLETE
Town Hall representation: Residents asking about possible amenity charges were told that Troon would make none of those decisions and that they were Board-level decisions.
Agreement language: For golf operations, Troon must “assess, make recommendations for, and administer application of charges” including member dues, guest greens fees, rental fees and similar charges for use of golf facilities.
Finding: It is fair to say Troon does not replace the Board's governance role. But the agreement gives Troon an express role in assessing, recommending and administering certain rates and charges. A complete answer should disclose that role.
Sources: Town Hall transcript p. 18; Agreement II.E.1.d.
6. Mandatory On-Site Transition Support
COMPLIANCE QUESTION
Town Hall representation: Troon explained that no corporate executive would be on site all day every day, but corporate personnel would provide regular support.
Agreement language: Troon must provide at least one on-site senior staff member with CCAM and/or PCAM certification at no cost: three days per week for months 1-3, two days per week for months 4-6, and one day per week for months 7-9. Each required missed day triggers a $2,500 reduction in the Base Management Fee.
Finding: The operative question is not whether an executive is present every day. The contract creates a specific, measurable on-site senior-support obligation. SLCC should identify the designated person, required days, attendance records, and any fee credits due. This provision should have also been extended as a practical matter for the remaining term of the agreement specifically to evaluate performance of on-site staff and to develop a clear scope of work and performance standards missing from the agreement.
Sources: Town Hall transcript p. 14; Agreement II.A.19.
7. General Manager Selection and Qualifications
COMPLIANCE QUESTION
Town Hall representation: The Town Hall confirmed that existing staff, including the General Manager, had been onboarded to Troon, but a direct question about the basis for retaining the General Manager was answered primarily by reference to onboarding and future performance management.
Agreement language: Troon recruits and screens General Manager candidates, but the Board makes the final selection. The agreement also requires the full-time on-site General Manager (GM) to hold CCAM and/or PCAM certification and to be a certified common interest development manager under California law.
Finding: The appropriate inquiry is whether the Board formally exercised its final-selection authority, when that occurred, what candidate-screening process occurred, and whether the selected General Manager satisfies all stated contractual qualifications. This is particularly questionable since at least four of the Board members previously stated that one of the reasons for changing management companies was their dissatisfaction with the GM. Was this done as an expedient measure or was the claim that the GM’s performance not satisfactory now looms as an issue for the community.
Sources: Town Hall transcript pp. 16-17; Agreement II.A.1 and II.A.5.
8. Proposal / Evaluation Disclosure to Board Members
STRONG GOVERNANCE INCONSISTENCY
Town Hall representation: A Board representative stated it was “completely false” that proposal/evaluation information had not been shared and said all information was provided to new Board members.
Agreement language: This point is not controlled by a specific Troon contract clause. However, a sitting director immediately disputed the factual statement, saying she wanted to see all proposals and was not shown them; the discussion also referenced only three proposals being provided to some directors.
Finding: The Town Hall record itself contains conflicting factual representations. This can be resolved objectively through production of the proposal distribution record, evaluation materials, and dates/recipients of disclosure. A specific question regarding the previously reported missing vendor analysis work product produced by prior Board members Gutknecht and McElwain were turned over but never provided to the new Board members.
Sources: Town Hall transcript p. 14.
Recommended Written Questions to the Board and Troon
1. Identify every provision of the Agreement that the Board contends requires separate Board approval for procurement or expenditures of a “measurable amount,” and reconcile that position with authority for recurring contractual obligations and approved-budget items.
2. Identify all categories of purchases, contracts, and expenditures Troon may initiate, negotiate, approve, order, or pay without a separate Board vote after approval of the annual budget.
3. Produce the completed Exhibit D that the parties contend is part of the Agreement, state the date it was first completed, and explain the contractual basis for executing the Agreement before that incorporated Agreement Document was completed.
4. Identify the designated II.A.19 Transition Support professional, provide the required on-site schedule, and describe how attendance and any $2,500-per-missed-day fee reductions will be verified.
5. Identify the Board action by which the General Manager was finally selected under II.A.1 and confirm the contractual certifications required by II.A.5.
6. Provide the complete set of management proposals and evaluation materials considered in the selection process, together with a record showing which directors received each item and when.
7. Identify any Exhibit A provision, amendment, side letter, or later agreement governing an incentive management fee, including any percentage cap, KPI formula, survey weighting, approval mechanism, and payment date.
Separate Governance and Transparency Issue: Conflicting Representations Regarding Disclosure of Vendor Proposals
Separate from the questions concerning the meaning of the Troon Agreement, the October 6 Town Hall revealed a significant governance and transparency issue regarding what information was provided to members of the Board during the management-company selection process.
During the Town Hall, a Board representative categorically rejected the assertion that proposals or evaluation materials had not been provided to the incoming/new Board members, characterizing that assertion as “completely false” and stating that all of the information had been shared with the new Board members.
That representation was immediately disputed by a sitting director. The director stated, in substance, that she had not been provided all of the proposals, that only three had been provided, and that despite wanting to review all of them, she was not shown the complete set.
This contradiction is important independently of whether Troon was ultimately the best management-company choice. It raises a more fundamental governance question: Did every director who was expected to evaluate, approve, oversee, or subsequently defend the Troon engagement have access to the complete underlying procurement record?
The issue should not be resolved through competing recollections. It is objectively verifiable through Association records. The Board should disclose:
1. The complete list of companies that submitted proposals or were considered during the management-company selection process;
2. The complete proposals, term sheets, presentations, scoring sheets, comparison matrices, interview notes, financial analyses, and other evaluation materials considered;
3. The dates on which those materials were distributed to each director;
4. Which directors received the complete proposal package and which, if any, received only a subset;
5. The criteria used to reduce the candidate pool and identify the finalists;
6. Who participated in that screening or elimination process;
7. Whether any directors were asked to vote on, ratify, oversee, or publicly defend the Troon arrangement without first having access to the complete proposal and evaluation record; and
8. The Board minutes or other records documenting the selection, approval, or ratification process.
The significance of this issue extends beyond the underlying vendor-selection process. At the Town Hall, members were given a categorical assurance that all relevant information had been provided to the new Board members. A sitting director then publicly contradicted that assurance. Even if the disagreement ultimately proves to have resulted from differing definitions of what constituted “all” information, the categorical representation itself requires clarification.
Accordingly, this issue should be treated separately from disagreements over contract interpretation. The procurement-authority and Exhibit D issues concern whether the written Troon Agreement was accurately described to members. The proposal-disclosure issue concerns whether the Board itself had complete information when exercising its governance and oversight responsibilities—and whether members received an accurate account of that process afterward.
The appropriate remedy is straightforward: the Association should produce the underlying records and provide a written chronology showing what proposals and evaluation materials were received, who reviewed them, when they were distributed to individual directors, how candidates were eliminated, and what information was before the Board when the Troon engagement was approved or subsequently reviewed.
Source: October 6, 2026 Town Hall transcript, proposal-disclosure discussion.
Overall Conclusion
The most defensible concern is not that the Board surrendered all authority to Troon. The agreement plainly preserves important Board approvals and oversight. The stronger concern is that Town Hall statements repeatedly described Troon's authority in categorical terms that are narrower than the written delegation. In particular, the procurement answer and the explanation for the blank Exhibit D merit formal written clarification because the contract text does not readily support the descriptions given to members.
For future communications, the clearest standard would be to distinguish three categories: (1) matters reserved for a Board decision or approval; (2) matters Troon may administer or decide within an approved policy or budget; and (3) matters on which Troon assesses, recommends, negotiates, or implements action subject to Board oversight. Using those categories would give members a substantially more accurate understanding of the management relationship.
Source Documents Reviewed
1. Troon Town Hall 10-6-26 Transcript without timestamp.docx.
2. 08-109.Troon.0728.Final(1).docx - Association Management Agreement, including Exhibits identified in the agreement.
Note: This report focuses on the agreement text and Town Hall transcript available for review. Incorporated materials, particularly the 88-page Management Services RFP and revised Term Sheet identified as Exhibit A, may add relevant terms and should be reviewed before making definitive claims about any subject governed by those submissions.
