Sun City board approves amended 2026 PIF forecast, delays raising minimum project threshold

The Recreation Centers of Sun City board approved an amended 2026 Preservation & Improvement Fund (PIF) forecast on Sept. 25 after discussion about how projects are listed and how funding decisions could affect the capital reserve fund (SIF). The board voted 9–0 to accept an amended forecast that consolidates project line items and restores previously board‑approved funding levels for several projects.

Why it matters: the PIF forecast sets multi‑year priorities for capital projects across the community, including renovations to recreation centers and golf maintenance buildings. Directors debated interpretive differences in the spreadsheet presentation—whether budget lines should be totaled as a single project or shown as separate components—because that presentation affects whether an item meets the PIF minimum threshold under board policy.

Key actions and votes: Long Range Planning committee chair Director Ruff moved to amend Board Policy 24 to raise the PIF minimum project threshold from $300,000 to $500,000, citing inflation and longer depreciable lives. That motion was publicly debated and then the maker agreed to withdraw it; the board later voted to postpone consideration of the change (motion to postpone carried 8–1). Separately, the board accepted a committee recommendation to approve the LRP 2026 PIF forecast, and Secretary Keis’s amendment to consolidate multiple forecast lines into single project totals and restore funding for Quail Run and Riverview/North maintenance buildings passed 9–0; the final approval of the amended forecast was 9–0.

What directors said: Director Ruff framed the proposed threshold increase as a response to inflation and longer asset life, saying the original $300,000 threshold was set “quite a few years ago” and proposing $500,000 to keep pace. Multiple members of the public and several directors warned that raising the floor could exclude smaller but necessary projects; public speakers Andre Casabon and Cal Frank urged the board not to raise the threshold without broader stakeholder involvement. Secretary Keis and others said how projects appear on the forecast matters: Keis noted that some projects are listed as multiple line items and that consolidation or clearer forecasting is needed so a single project would not be excluded by an arbitrary line‑item cutoff.

Management input: Kevin McCurdy, director of finance, told the board that staff had not performed a detailed backward‑looking analysis on past projects to evaluate the change; instead staff and LRP reviewed the long‑range forecast to identify any projects that would be pushed from PIF to SIF by a higher threshold and did not find a clear set of projects that would be affected.

Next steps: With the amended forecast approved, LRP and finance staff will proceed according to the updated schedule and the forecasted project list. The separate proposal to amend Board Policy 24 (raising the PIF minimum) was postponed for further study and stakeholder review.

Sources: Motions and roll calls recorded at the RCSC board meeting on Sept. 25, 2025; statements by Director Jim Ruff, Secretary Keis and Kevin McCurdy.