SLCC 2027 Budget Workshop 10/8/26 Proposed Golf Cart Fee

What the Board/management proposed

The proposal was initially referred to by a participant as a “trail fee,” but management expressly rejected that terminology: “There's not a trail fee… it's not a trail fee. It's a golf registration fee.” SLCC 2027 Budget Workshop – Oct…

Later, under the Administration budget, management explained that all golf carts in the community would be required to register and pay an annual fee, with implementation contemplated in 2027. It was characterized as a Board initiative that had been discussed at the prior meeting and incorporated into the proposed budget. Why is during the Budget Workshop the first time Sun Lakes membership is hearing about this? There should have been a town hall to present the concept and allow member comments. When will the Board grasp the concept of proper governance?

Why the registration requirement was proposed

The stated justification was liability/risk reduction, not golf-course maintenance or use of the golf course. It was stated that insurance reviews had identified golf-cart liability as a risk for three consecutive years. The questions raised by insurers included whether SLCC verifies that carts are insured and whether owners sign documentation stating that the Association is not responsible for maintaining their carts. SLCC 2027 Budget Workshop – Oct…

A reference was also referenced an Orange County golf-cart/pedestrian case said to have resulted in a $10 million judgment as an example of the type of exposure that brought the matter to the Board's attention. This cannot be verified and the Board should produce appropriate documentation to substantiate the claim.

Registration, insurance verification and the waiver

The proposed program would apparently have three important components.

Each cart would receive an individual identifying number/sticker, renewed annually. SLCC would also obtain proof of insurance—either insurance for a street-legal cart or evidence that a conventional cart is covered under the owner's policy.

Most importantly for your question, management said SLCC would obtain:

“proof of that and then a quasi-waiver signed by that.” Another participant immediately clarified:  “Yeah. The waiver's the release.”

Thus, the transcript indicates that the proposed registration is not merely an identification program. It contemplates requiring the cart owner to provide insurance documentation and execute a release/waiver intended to provide SLCC another layer of liability protection.

$100 per cart, every year.

When asked the amount, management responded that the proposed fee was:

$100 per year, per cart. It was expressly clarified that this applies to “all carts in the community,” not merely carts used for golf.

The discussion also confirmed that an owner with two carts would apparently pay twice, because each cart would separately require the sticker/registration process.

Management stated that implementation would require a rule change adopted by the Board, probably with implementation in the first quarter of 2027.

$170,000 in anticipated revenue. The proposed 2027 budget reportedly includes approximately $170,000 in net revenue from the program.

One participant directly pointed out the significance: “It really ultimately is an additional cost to the members that own golf [cart].”

The response was: “That is true. That is true.”

The discussion then characterized $100 annually as roughly $8.30 per month, but another participant emphasized the underlying point: “it's going to cost us extra every month.” Management agreed that it would be a cost passed to the member and confirmed that registration would be renewed every year.

Already insured? You still pay. One of the most significant exchanges occurs around 1:16:02. A participant asks: “if I have my golf cart personally insured, do I still have to pay?” The answer: “Absolutely.” This was followed by: “Yes, everybody does.” And then the amount was again confirmed as $100 per year.

So, based strictly on the workshop transcript, proof that a homeowner already carries insurance does not eliminate the proposed $100 annual fee. Insurance verification and payment of the registration fee are separate requirements under the proposal.

No additional staff anticipated

A concern was raised that administering registration, insurance verification and waivers could require another employee. Management responded that existing administrative resources could be reassigned and: “there's no staff increase.”

Management said the process should be incorporated into existing staffing. The GM subsequently verified that there will be an annual staffing impact of approximately $30,000 per year since this is slated as an annual event. What is the value to Sun Lakers?

The important distinction

The record supports a fairly precise description of the proposal:

This is not presented as a fee for using the golf course. It is a proposed mandatory annual golf-cart registration program applying to all community golf carts, under which each cart would be individually registered, the owner would provide proof of insurance, the owner would execute a waiver/release intended to protect the Association, and the owner would pay $100 per cart per year.

The budget anticipates approximately $170,000 in net annual revenue from it.

There is also an important procedural point: at the workshop, this was still a proposal, not an implemented rule. Management specifically stated that if approved, SLCC would still need to proceed with a rule change adopted by the Board before implementation.

The aspect that should be examined next is particularly interesting: whether the $100 amount bears a documented relationship to SLCC's actual cost of administering registration/insurance verification, or whether the program is functioning partly as a revenue-generating assessment on cart owners.   The transcript itself says $170,000 net revenue is budgeted while also saying no additional staff will be required. That could warrant a closer examination of the proposed budget and the Board's authority to impose the charge.

Board claim of major liability is unverifiable at the present time.

The $10 million case referred to by a board member cannot be substantiated based upon available internet information. The Board should not rely upon it as an established fact when explaining the program to homeowners.

This does not mean golf-cart liability risks are nonexistent. It means the particular example used to justify the proposal remains unverified. The Board or HOA legal should provide:

1. The name and case number of the alleged Mission Viejo Country Club lawsuit.

2. The court and date of the judgment or settlement.

3. Documentation establishing the reported $10 million amount.

4. Clarification of whether the Association's insurance broker supplied this example and, if so, the underlying source.

The claim should currently be classified as unverified—not proven false. A case may exist under another name, or the amount, location, or circumstances may have been misstated.

Given that the proposed program anticipates approximately $170,000 gain in net revenue, what does the referenced claim have to do with the purpose of the proposed fee increase? What is the gross revenue and expenses not just the anticipated net?

The following are major concerns beyond the fact that this is an increase in annual HOA assessment being presented as a liability protection measure. A means to increase the cost to members by classifying it as a fee rather than simply increasing the HOA assessment:

§  The budget process remains, as it has for the past six years a routine exercise with no real creative budget initiatives provided by the Board.

§  The General Manager subsequently verified that the estimated gross revenue from this scheme would be $200,000 with an estimated cost of $30,000 to cover materials and administrative staff's time to support the entire effort to register approximately 2,000 vehicles.

§  If this were going to be done as a means of protecting Sun Lakes from potential consequential liability for vehicle accidents why does it not include electric bicycles, tricycles, or all vehicles? This is a matter of equal treatment.

§  This is also a matter of poor governance. For the above transcript, it is clear that this idea has not been well thought out or justified. Why did it even become an issue we heard about for the first time at the budget review meeting? This should have been completely thought and voted on in executive session whether to present it at a town hall or kill the idea.

§  When will board members understand that individual board members carry no authority other than what is approved by a majority vote?

Finally, the “cart fee” as described in the transcript may require a CCR modification which will require member approval. This conclusion is based upon the following:

§  Section 9.04 states: "Regular Assessments payable to the Association shall be assessed equally against all Owners"

§  Section 10.19 does not expressly establish a $100 annual registration fee. The distinction is between regulating an activity and imposing a financial obligation. A Board may possess authority to regulate an activity without necessarily possessing unlimited authority to charge homeowners for participating in that activity.

§  California Civil Code §5600(b) This statute is particularly relevant. It states: "An association shall not impose or collect an assessment or fee that exceeds the amount necessary to defray the costs for which it is levied."

It is unclear whether a CCR modification or vote from the members is required because the Board did not present sufficient details to make that determination. It is likely that a CCR modification may be required and the cart fee as described appears to be in violation of CA Civil Code  §5600(b).