MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
August 6, 2001
7:00 P.M.

   A.        Call to Order & Roll Call

A meeting of the Santa Rosa Community Services District was held at the Santa Rosa CSD office, commenting at 7:00 PM on August 6, 2001.  Present were the following Directors:  

                        Director Buescher
                        Director Demos
                        Director Roy
                        Director Thomas
                        Director McBride was absent

 The following persons were also present:

                        General Manager Rogers
                        General Counsel Scott

 B.        Public Expression

             None.  

C.         Agenda Item D, Consideration Of Ordinance Amending Ordinance 01-02 Relating To The Timing Of Road Development Impact Fees.

 Because of time constraints affecting one of the Directors, President Demos announced that Item D would be taken out of order, ahead of Item C on the Agenda.  

President Demos asked General Counsel Scott to report on the conflict of interest issue.  Mr. Scott referred to a memorandum he wrote to the Board of Directors that was included in the Board correspondence.  Director Thomas asked if the public had been furnished with copies of the Memorandum; Mr. Scott stated that he had not brought extra copies, and Director Thomas asked that it be copied at that point and distributed to the audience.  Director Thomas stated that Counsel’s opinion that there was a conflict of interest was a surprise; Mr. Scott responded that he had given a clear verbal opinion at the last Board meeting that Director Thomas’ participation in the discussion constituted a conflict of interest, because he has a residence under construction that would be subject to the Mitigation Fee according to the adopted ordinance, and that if the Board changed the ordinance, it would effectively exempt Director Thomas’ residence from the fee.  The memorandum dated August 6 merely set forth the same opinion in writing.  General Counsel Scott advised Director Thomas that before he participated in the discussion, that he should request a written legal opinion from the Fair Political Practices Commission, which takes a few weeks. 

Director Roy questioned the meaning of the last sentence of Section 8 of the ordinance; does an applicant have to enter into an agreement with the District?  General Counsel Scott explained that an applicant might be required to sign an agreement guaranteeing payment of the fee.

President Demos asked General Counsel Scott to provide the background of the change proposed at this meeting, as opposed to the Ordinance previously adopted.  General Counsel Scott stated that the original ordinance was crafted in precise conformance with applicable State statutes, requiring collection of the fee at the time of final inspection by the permitting agency (Riverside County), or upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.  It takes 60 days after the date of adoption at the June Board Meeting for the Ordinance to be effective.  Any permits for which a final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy were issued between June 28 and August 28 would not be affected.  Any permits for which a final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy are issued after August 28 would be subject to the fee, regardless of when the building permit was obtained. At the last meeting, the Board was concerned that there were people who had obtained building permits some time ago, but who had not received final inspection before August 28, would have had all of their budgets planned, but would be subject to a new fee that had not been in effect at the time they obtained their permits.  The Board requested that an amendment to the Ordinance be put back on the agenda to allow the Board to reconsider the equities of the situation.  Director Thomas has a building permit, and could potentially be impacted by this amendment to the ordinance, since the fee would no longer be applicable to his project.  Counsel recommended that he not participate in the voting for this matter, as it could have a material financial effect with negative implications.  The rest of the Board can consider the matter. 

President Demos requested comments on the matter from members of the public.   

Christine Close, building at 45180 Via Vaquero, is opposed to paying fees they didn’t know about or that weren’t budgeted when they started building. 

Jeff Hodges, 21120 Rio Linda Road, spoke in favor of the amendment; he already lives in a trailer on the property, but is going to pull a permit to build a new house on the property.  He does not feel that he will impact the roads, as he is already driving regularly to the property.  Also, if he applies for the permit, and receives it on August 29, is he still subject to the fee?  General Manager Rogers gave the opinion that he would be subject to the fee, but he could apply to the Board for a refund, although that is not specifically stated in the Ordinance.  An extensive discussion ensued between Director Thomas, District Counsel Scott, and several members of the public pertaining to the development and interpretation of the ordinance and the collection of the fee.  Mr. Hodges asked for a specific change to the ordinance pertaining to his situation.  President Demos responded that every situation cannot be written into an ordinance.  Mr. Hodges asked if a fee was charged for a second unit or guesthouse.  General Manager Rogers quoted the fee from the Ordinance, $1,278.82 for the guesthouse, $2,539.04 for the primary residence. 

Mike Buoye,  29279 Via Santa Rosa, thanked the Board for the job they do for all of the property owners, but requested that the rules not be changed during the construction period.  The implementation of the fee may have been an oversight, and the Board has the opportunity to correct the situation at this time.   

Marty Wright, 29279 Via Santa Rosa, is a realtor and broker for over thirty years.  Adding the fees late in the game is unfair.  Taxes and fees are already too high, and the reputation of being an expensive area may negatively impact resale costs.  Contingency funds in construction budgets are often inadequate to accommodate unexpected fees.

Richard Hayes, building a home at 23849 Carancho Road.  Opposed to original ordinance, in favor of change voted on tonight.  He just found out about this yesterday.  Since it was voted on in June, what is the vehicle by which he would have found out about this?  General Manager Rogers responded that all agendas are posted on the office door and on the four bulletin boards throughout the District, one week before all meetings.  The information about the mitigation fee has been on the web site for about six months.  In April, an eight page newsletter was mailed to 1,300 property owners, it was also discussed at numerous finance and engineering committee meetings, the agendas for which were posted just like the Board agendas.  Prior to the June Board meeting, staff also made up colored posters on letterhead that were posted on the bulletin boards.  Mr. Hayes replied that did not receive any notice, and he does not want to pay the fee. 

Jim Ward opposes the fee.  He has been on the property for a year legally, gets all his mail, has been to the District Office several times, sees the road crew regularly, but has never heard about the fee.  If the District needs to collect additional fees, they should be going after the illegal aliens that use the roads.

There being no additional members of the public wishing to comment, President Demos asked Mr. Scott to confirm that fees would be due only on Building permits issued on or after August 28.  Mr. Scott confirmed this.  

Director Thomas asked for clarification of the last sentence, “Applicants may be required to enter into an agreement with the District to guarantee payment of the road development impact fees prior to issuance of any permits for a parcel either by the District of Riverside County.” General Manager Rogers stated that the same language was in the original ordinance, and that it had not changed.  District Counsel Scott stated that the requirement was put in to provide a mechanism to assure that the applicant acknowledged the existence of the fee, at the time any permits were issued.  At the request of President Demos, General Manager Rogers further explained the permit process, the sequence of notifications from the County, and the purpose of the ordinance language requiring that the property owner agree to pay the mitigation fee.

Director Roy expressed his approval of the proposed change.

President Demos asked if the ordinance as amended could still be enforced in the future.  District Counsel Scott confirmed that the Ordinance would not be weakened in any way by the change, and that the proposed change simply exempts out those projects already under construction.

 Director Buescher questioned the amount of money that would be lost by the proposed change.  General Manager Rogers explained that he did not have detailed information on the geographic distribution of the 33 permits reported by Director Thomas to be under construction, but if an average of $2,800, the District is potentially giving up about $95,000 in fees by enacting the current change.   The District has records of 35, 45 and 25 permits per year for the past three years, and Chuck Crandall used an average of 30 permits per year for the Financial Master Plan project.  Director Buescher observed that enactment of the proposed change would set the District back about one year.  

Director Buescher expressed concern over Director Thomas’ participation in the discussion, and where that might leave us with respect to the Brown Act and the validity of the ordinance.  General Counsel Scott stated that it would be important to get three affirmative votes, not including Director Thomas’.  

President Demos asked for additional input from the public.  Marty Wright stated that our roads are narrow, and can be dangerous.  They are not opposed to having our taxes raised as long as we all pay it.  She and Mike (Buoye) are not opposed if the District comes up with another way to improve our streets.  Jeff Hodges asked how many people actually showed up for the meetings, after we did all these mailings and posted all the notices.  President Demos responded that the turnout was better than average, but still just a few people. 

Harold Rouse, 28100 Sycamore Mesa Road, supports the proposed amendment to the Ordinance as being fair and clean for all concerned.

Moved by Roy, seconded by Buescher to adopt Ordinance 01-03, amending Section 8, Article 16 of the Ordinance Code.  Motion passed with affirmative votes by Buescher, Demos and Roy, Thomas abstaining.  

Director Roy left the meeting at this time.  

D.  Agenda Item C.  Consideration of Resolution requesting that the Riverside County Registrar of Voters conduct an election on November 6, 2001 to consider the expansion of District powers to include acquisition and maintenance of equestrian trails.

Public comment:  Harold Rouse, 28100 Sycamore Mesa Road spoke on behalf of the trails question.  Petitions signed by 90 or so people have previously been submitted in favor of the issue.  Proponents envision a simple trail network with 3’ or 4’ wide trails within existing road rights-of-way.  The first step is to get an official vote of the residents, which must be followed by an application to LAFCO.   The initial project only needs to extend for a few miles, to be extended over time.  It should add significantly to property values.  Public safety is a consideration, and would be improved by the addition of the trails.  The election will not cost the District any money, since it will be done in conjunction with the District General Election.  If the voters turn it down, we can forget about the idea for a few years. 

Property owner Jeff Hodges questioned the $2,500 figure he had heard earlier.  President Demos stated that the District had been advised there would be no cost because it would be coincident with the General Election, for which we were already paying.  

Director Thomas stated he was in favor of the election, because it gives the residents an opportunity to vote on the matter.   

President Demos stated that he was in favor putting the measure to a vote, but that he was opposed to spending District funds on something that we don’t know anything about, and he asked that the special interest group interested in constructing trails raise the funds to pay for the election.  He also expressed his concern that non-voting absentee owners will be affected by trail development, without being able to vote on the matter.  More information is needed.   

Director Buescher stated his support for the election, and asked if the Charter could be opened even wider.  General Counsel Scott stated that G.C. 61600 allows districts to pursue many different functions, but that the District needs to be concerned about jurisdictional issues that might lead to a denial at LAFCO.  This resolution addresses only equestrian and multi-purpose trails at this time.  General Manager Rogers pointed out that the LAFCO application requires a detailed plan of service, which we are not prepared to pursue for any functions other than trails at this time.   

Director Buescher also asked what the cost implications would be if only the three incumbents filed for reelection, and no District General Election was needed.  General Manager Rogers reported that staff has not been able to obtain a definite answer from the Registrar of Voters, but that the cost could be between $800 and $2,500.   

Moved by Buescher, seconded by Thomas to adopt Resolution 01-12:   Requesting that the Registrar of Voters of Riverside County Conduct an Election on November 6, 2001

The motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Directors present.

E.  Adjournment.

There being no further business, President Demos adjourned the meeting at 8:10 PM at the District office.  

                                                                                     __________________________

                                                                                    John B. Rogers, P.E., Secretary

                                                                                    Board of Directors

 

 Attest:  

__________________________

George Demos, President
Board of Directors