Golf committee tables range ball-machine relocation after members question $27,000–$31,000 cost estimates

Sun City West’s Golf Committee on May 8 discussed moving driving-range ball-dispensing machines away from golf-course patios and enclosing machines to reduce noise and improve member experience. Staff presented cost estimates and noise comparisons and the committee agreed to table the item for further study.

The issue matters because staff said some machines generate brief spikes of sound up to about 90 decibels when balls are dumped into a basket, disrupting conversations on nearby patios. Johnson, a staff presenter, said moving units 50–100 feet from patios “would gain about 15 decibels” and brought a multi-site estimate ranging from $10,050 for enclosures (where electrical already exists) to $27,000–$31,000 where new conduit and electrical work would be needed.

Committee members raised alternatives and cost concerns. Committee member David Miller said he had polled residents who complained and found “none of them support spending this kind of money to fix that kind of problem” and called the staff proposal “over engineered.” Miller urged the committee to table the discussion rather than send a high-cost plan to the board. Member Eichner and others described the problem as episodic — long loading cycles of several minutes that can drive people off a patio — and said lower-cost fixes might address the main complaints.

Members suggested several lower-cost options discussed during the meeting: moving machines to existing alcoves with power nearby, orienting units differently to protect touchscreens from sun, adding a simple flap on the machine outlet to keep balls from rolling into the parking lot, or shifting machines to locations where the patio is less populated. Johnson noted that two courses with machines already moved will still need covers because exposed electronics face irrigation and sunlight.

The committee opted by consensus to table the relocation/enclosure proposal and to make the item a priority for further study when the committee reconvenes after July 1. No formal motion or vote was recorded in the transcript. The general manager had previously said board approval would be required before spending funds beyond existing authority.

The discussion included resident comments posted to the meeting’s online chat, naming cost overruns and earlier unfulfilled commitments; staff said the initial purchase price of some machines was lower and replacements and site work affected later costs.

Next steps: staff will revisit lower-cost options and return to the committee with alternatives and cost comparisons later in the year. The committee did not approve any construction or purchase at the May 8 meeting.