Image Up Advertising & Design

6 | SUN LAKES LIFESTYLES | AUGUST 2018 | GM Report By Christopher Mitchell Member Questions from previous meeting: Q: A member requested an update on the Board of Equalization penalties, fines, and payments. A: The Board is pursuing two courses of action, (1) dispute of tax determination (2) offer and compromise. Unfortunately, the Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CADTFA) has a backlog, and we were just assigned a staff person to review our items. Staff was notified on June 27th that a new staff member of the CADTFA will be contacting our legal representative on June 28th to provide an update. Q: A member stated he analyzes the financial statements each month and has questions on some of the figures. He was looking for answers to the following questions: Q: Why is the cable TV account $24,000 unfavorable to budget, when the contract amount is known; A: Spectrum revised billing for four prior billing periods for the correct contract amount. Q: Why is the community patrol account $41,557 favorable to budget? A: During the transition of security companies the hours worked were less than budgeted. Q: Why is account #525500, Repairs and Maintenance $64,607 unfavorable to budget? This account is over budget for the 2018 budget. A: The Guard Shack construction is recorded under this account. As the project concludes, this will be capitalized. Also, in this account is there are repairs to concrete paths. Q: Why is account #406000, Other Income $58,101 favorable to budget? There is a large amount is way over the 2018 budget for the year. A: There was a deposit of $54,222.48 received as a settlement from Loma Linda; these funds will be used on the drainage project for 14, 15 and 16. Q: What is the item on the Sun Lakes Investment Report for $158,650, accounts #11-110000 & #160402, items shown as reconciling item, duplicate transfer, November 2017 through April 2017 resale fees? A: The Board has formally requested that PCM accounting make the entry. Q: A Member stated he was speaking on behalf of a group of individuals who feel member comments and concerns should be addressed near the beginning of the agenda rather than at the end. The members would like to be heard first, not last. A: The Board will consider the request, but normal etiquette for Board Meetings are to have Board Business come first in the meeting. Q: A Member had a specific concern with rule #18-05, Article 5.01, Parking and Traffic Rule #6 of the Rules and Regulations. The concerns include: Will homeowners still be responsible for their guests? There is nothing in the proposed rules that overrides the CC&R's about guests. A: No change to the CC&Rs is proposed, and therefore homeowners are still responsible for their guests. Q: How are "guests of residents" defined? Are one-time vendors defined as guests, i.e., pizza delivery, furniture mover, caregivers, medical staffing, etc.? A: Guests are anyone called in by the resident. The only exception is "Registered Vendors." Q: The penalties apply to residents and guests of residents. Does this mean that residents will pay for violations for their guests, or will guests receive their own violations? A: Residents would be responsible for violations of their guests. Q: When will residents be notified that a violation was issued, immediately, in seven days or in thirty days? This is not addressed in the rule. A: The original timeline brought up at the town halls was 7-10 days. Q: How are guests of residents defined? What about one-time vendors who enter under one resident's name and then stay to service more residents calls? How can the resident make sure the vendor leaves the community after their work has been done, and re-enter to service their next client? This is not addressed. A: Guests are anyone called in by the resident. The only exception is "Registered Vendors." The rule addresses monetary fines for registered vendors. Guests are still the responsibility of the resident while they are within the community. Q: First offense warning. Who makes the decision on who gets the warning? There is no "grace speed limit" addressed in the rule. A: The rule states, if it is the first offense, then a warning would be given. Q: Are checks and balances in place to ensure warnings and second notices will be decided upon fair and equitably? What is the recourse, or ability to challenge this rule? A: A first offense would get a warning, and a second would get a citation. These are noted in the members account. The member can appeal to the Board. Q: Do residents want Planning and Compliance, Safety and Security, and/or Securitas to decide if someone gets a warning? There is no indication in the rule who will issue the warning(s), and how, "fair and equitable" is included. A: All citations and warnings are issued by Planning & Compliance. Q: For registered vendors, fines have been established, but is not indicated whether the resident or vendor is responsible for the fine. A: For registered vendors, the vendor would be responsible. Q: Do warnings drop off after a predetermined time period, or are they life long? A: That has not been determined. Q: $50k was spent to build extra security space for viewing "warnings/citations," call center, etc., and the traffic rule has not passed yet. Was this addition added too soon? A: The Guard building was expanded to hold dispatcher and camera monitoring. This was discussed at the town halls. Q: Residents would like monthly stats that breakdown number of violations by; warning issued for speeding over what limit, stop signs, etc., warning issued but suspended, etc. continued on page 64

• Cover