612 Marti Lane, Annapolis, MD 21401
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Sunshine House II Costs & Pricing
At Sunshine House II, the cost of care reflects a commitment to high-quality services tailored to individual needs. For a semi-private room, residents can expect a monthly fee of $4,500, which is notably higher than both the average for Anne Arundel County at $4,109 and the state average of $3,545. Similarly, for private accommodations, Sunshine House II charges $5,000 per month - again surpassing the county's average of $4,162 and slightly exceeding Maryland's overall average of $4,112. These rates underscore our dedication to providing exceptional care and amenities that enhance the living experience for our residents while positioning ourselves as a premium option in comparison to local and statewide competitors.
| Floor plans | Sunshine House II | Anne Arundel County | Maryland |
|---|---|---|---|
| Semi-Private | $4,500 | $4,109 | $3,545 |
| Private | $5,000 | $4,162 | $4,112 |
Overall Review of Sunshine House II
Pros
The help is wonderful.- They care.
- The food is great.
- The facility looks very nice.
Cons
The owner promised to refund $7,000 for September but never mailed the check.- The owner would not answer the phone and did not return calls after numerous messages.
- The reviewer believes Sunshine House keeps money after a loved one’s death.
- The reviewer had to seek help in Maryland.
- The owner is uncaring and focused on money.
- The facility has limited staff and residents are isolated with little interaction.
- Staff rarely get residents up to be alert or social, and doors are often kept closed.
- The facility appears nice but does not meet the reviewer’s expectations, and families must supply everything and adhere to strict brand requirements.
Review
Sunshine House II in Annapolis is best suited for families that will stay deeply involved in oversight and want a plainly acceptable level of daily care within a neat, presentable setting. It is not a strong match for those who need vibrant social programming, consistent proactive communication from leadership, or rock-solid financial transparency. On the ground, caregivers are described as genuinely caring and meals are reportedly solid, and the building presents well, which can translate into reliable basic support day to day. The decisive caveat is that governance and fiduciary trust will require active family involvement; without that, the positives can be outweighed by serious drawbacks.
Those who ought to consider alternatives include anyone prioritizing clear, accountable financial handling and prompt, direct communication from the owner or administrator. The most troubling threads in the feedback are not about care gaps in the moment, but about money matters and the responsiveness of leadership when circumstances change, such as a resident’s death and a prepaid balance. For families seeking a transparent refund process, timely replies, and a governance structure that stands by contracts, Sunshine House II is unlikely to meet expectations. In short, if financial trust and proactive administrative support are nonnegotiable, other communities should be in the running.
The key pros, genuine on-site care and good-quality meals, do offer real value and can sustain daily needs even when programming is sparse. When staff are present, they do provide care that feels attentive, and the kitchen earns positive notes for consistency in meals. These strengths, however, do not fully offset the most consequential cons: a perceived owner-focused approach that prioritizes money over timely, respectful responses, and a level of isolation that can leave two residents with minimal peer interaction. The contrast between a well-kept appearance and a strained sense of community highlights a mismatch between surface polish and lived experience.
A practical read on operations suggests notable gaps in resident engagement and a heavy burden on families to supply items and specify brands and types. The two-staff reality can translate into limited opportunities for meaningful social interaction, frequent doors left closed or barely ajar, and a sense that residents are aging in a setting that values appearance over engagement. For families, this means expectations around daily structure, recreation, and opportunities for social connection should be explicitly clarified before move-in, and monitored thereafter. The environment may look nice, but the day-to-day reality can feel isolating if programming and supervision are not actively sustained.
The financial friction reflected in the reviews is not a minor footnote. A prepaid balance of roughly seven thousand dollars was not refunded promptly, and communication about the outstanding funds proved unreliable. That combination, unreturned funds and inconsistent responsiveness, creates a risk profile that looms over any long-term arrangement. Prospective residents and families should insist on written, enforceable refund and hold-harmless clauses, a transparent ledger for prepaid services, and a clear path for escalation if disputes arise. Consulting a local elder-law or consumer protection resource before committing is a prudent precaution, and maintaining meticulous documentation of all transactions will be essential.
In the end, Sunshine House II is not recommended for most families seeking a reliable, well-governed assisted-living experience. It may appeal to those who can tolerate limited programming and who discipline themselves to supervise every financial interaction while weighing the intangible comfort of a cared-for, pleasant environment. For anyone who cannot accept the risk of delayed refunds, opaque communications, or a potentially isolating resident experience, alternatives with stronger governance, more robust social programming, and clearer fiduciary practices are worth pursuing. If still considering Sunshine House II, demand concrete assurances: a formal policy on refunds, a named financial officer with direct contact, regular family updates, and a plan for daily activity and resident engagement that goes beyond keeping doors open.
5 resident community capacity
Assisted Living
Board and Care Home
Cats allowed
Dogs allowed
Activities off-site
Beautician on-site
Cable or satellite TV
Dining room
Fully furnished
Garden
Housekeeping services
Indoor common areas
Move-in coordination
Outdoor common areas
Private
Private bathrooms
Respite or short term stays offered
Telephone
Wheelchair accessible showers
Wi-Fi/high-speed internet available
Baltimore-Washington International (13 miles away)
24-hour supervision
Assistance with bathing
Assistance with dressing
Assistance with transfers
Diabetes diet
Diabetic care
High acuity care
Incontinence care
Meal preparation and service
Medication management
Special dietary restrictions
Transportation arrangement (medical)
Transportation to doctors appointments
When to Transition from Assisted Living to Memory Care: Key Indicators, Steps, and Finding the Right Community
Assisted Living and Memory Care: Understanding Their Core Differences
Beyond the Bingo Hall: 50+ Enriching Activities for Seniors in Assisted Living