Finding. A Finding is defined as any Commission identified noncompliance with Agreement requirements that specifies that an activity or action did not take place. The Commission will document in writing any and all findings of noncompliance with this Agreement and will afford the CNA the opportunity to work with the Commission to address any such findings. Attachment 3 – LIST OF LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES The following regulations and policies are documents the CNA shall follow when developing their processes and procedures for performing work under the AbilityOne Program and in accordance with this agreement:
Finding. No differences arose from the comparisons listed above. The result of the above recomputation ('chargeable' personnel costs) in all cases did not exceed the actual costs as recorded in the accounting records. Overheads/ Indirect costs
Finding. The dates given by the Beneficiary are consistent with the management information provided by the Beneficiary.
Finding. The applicant provided the following findings, As discussed above, the FMP imposed a 2.3:1 ratio rather than the county’s standard 2.5:1 ratio. The chart show in the above sections demonstrate how the applicant has met the 2.3:1 ratio and explains that if sufficient OLUs are not constructed, that bonding will be used to ensure compliance with this standard. As noted in the BOCC’s decision on the FMP, the subject property is an expansion of the existing Resort. As such, any calculation regarding compliance with the required ratio must take into consideration the existing residential units and OLUs. The existing Resort and annexation property (Phase A and B) includes 420 residential lots and 242 OLUs. The proposed residential subdivision and companion OLU subdivision will increase those numbers to 492 residential lots and 274 OLUs. This total provides a 1.79 to 1 ratio, well below the maximum 2.3 to 1 ratio. However, within the annexation expansion area, currently, only the Phase A OLU subdivision (32 units) and companion residential subdivision (70 lots) are platted. The OLU and companion residential subdivision tentative plat for Phase B were approved on May 4, 2022 but have not yet been platted. The applicant provided a summary table which staff has included below. Phase SFR Units OLUs Phase Ratio Overall Ratio Complete OLUs Req. OLUs at 2.3:1 Caldera 1 & 2 320 196 1.6:1 1.6:1 196 150 (min) CSA Phase A 70 32 2.18:1 1.7:1 196 170 (26 surplus) CSA Phase B 30 14 2.14:1 1.7:1 196 182 (14 surplus) CSA Phase C 72 32 2.25:1 1.8:1 196 214 (18 required) Total 492 276 N/A 1.8:1 196 For Phase A and Phase B, the applicant proposed 32 and 14 OLUs, respectively. For Phase C the applicant proposes 32 OLUs to be constructed on 16 separate lots. The applicant has recently submitted building permits for five OLUs within Phase A and anticipates additional permit submittals to follow. With approval of the Phase C OLU and companion residential subdivision plat, a total of 214 OLUs are required to be in place or guaranteed through surety bonding. As of the writing of this staff report, 196 OLUs are constructed, leaving at least 18 required to ensure compliance with the approved 2.3:1 ratio. Depending on the timing of construction of the OLUs, if the 18 OLUs are not completed by the time of recording of the Phase C plats, the applicant will be required to provide bonding or other security to ensure that all required OLUs are in place or guaranteed through bonding. Staff adds a ...
Finding. The applicant submitted the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, which covers the area dedicated to the subject OLU subdivision and the companion residential subdivision. The Plan details the location of anticipated ground disturbance, sediment and debris fencing, and construction entrance. The Plan also notes the use of erosion and sediment control best management practices throughout the construction phase. This criterion is met.
Finding. The annexation property was reviewed and approved as an expansion of the existing Caldera Springs Resort. For this reason, staff finds the exterior property lines are the exterior property lines of the combined existing Resort and annexation property. In other words, none of the common property lines between the existing Resort and annexation property are considered exterior property lines for this purposes of these conditions. Xxx XXxx confirmed this interpretation in the FMP decision. Based on staff’s review of the TP, all development on the proposed OLU lots will comply with the 250-foot setback requirement of subsection (B) above, and the 100-foot setback for roads under subsection (D). CMP 14 through 19.
Finding. The previously approved and platted Phase A includes 86 EDUs2. Phase B includes 37 EDUs3. The subject OLU subdivision will include 16 EDUs and the companion Phase C 72-lot residential subdivision will include 72 EDUs, for a total of 88 EDUs.4 Together, Phase A, B, and C will include 211 EDUs. Similar to Phase B, the applicant agrees to a condition of approval to ensure compliance.
Finding. In compliance with this criterion, the applicant submitted a tentative plan application for a 16-lot subdivision. The applicable criteria in Title 17, DCC 18.113 and the FMP are addressed in this decision. Section 18.113.110. Provision of Streets, Utilities, Developed Recreational Facilities and Visitor Oriented Accommodations.
Finding. The Companies do not appear to be in compliance with the terms of this Standard. The Companies should analyze trends across offices, regions, product/plan, or the Companies as a whole. Multi-State Examination of MEGA, Mid-West & Chesapeake RSA Standard 2.C.7: If negative indications or trends are identified as the result of the quarterly review of logged complaints or trends, the Companies take action to resolve the indicated problem(s). The Companies reported meeting this Standard as of December 31, 2009. The examination review period was January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. To determine compliance of Standard 2.C.6, the Examiners requested and reviewed all new or revised versions of such policies and procedures that were in effect for the period July 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. In addition, the Examiners also requested additional information based upon their review of the IAD workpapers and The Xxxxxxx Group workpaper files. The Examiners’ review of the Companies’ provided documentation showed that the Companies did not perform quarterly trend analysis of complaints. The only trend analysis that the Companies could demonstrate was to look at complaints against individual agents. No trend analysis was ever done with respect to trends across offices, regions, or the Companies as a whole. The Companies therefore cannot be found to have taken action to resolve complaint trends when they could not even demonstrate a process of identifying them. Finding: Because the Companies failed 2.C.6, the Examiners were unable to assess compliance with standard 2.C.7. The Companies should analyze trends across offices, regions, product/plan, or the Companies as a whole. Once negative trends are identified, the Companies should take corrective actions as appropriate. Multi-State Examination of MEGA, Mid-West & Chesapeake RSA Standard 2.D.2: POS materials are reviewed at least annually to assess whether the materials continue to be appropriate and whether they include appropriate disclosures. The Companies reported meeting this Standard as of December 31, 2009. The examination review period was January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. The Companies acknowledged in their 2009 review of POS materials that it did not properly identify and categorize all POS material and therefore not all materials were reviewed. In order to address this issue, the Companies revised their process for identifying and categorizing POS material prior to their 2010 review. To determi...
Finding. Xxxxxxxx's protest is respectfully denied. October 10, 2019 Posted: 12/25/2019 by Legislative Services Agency
