The agenda packet for this week’s CCSD meeting is available on the Cambria CSD website. It has a lot of interesting information about district business, so I thought I’d include it here. This is directly from the published agenda on the CCSD website.
ADMINISTRATION
LATE FEE WAIVER – 12-MONTH PAYMENT HISTORY REVIEW
Last month, staff met with the former Executive Committee (President Sanders and Vice President Chaldecott) as directed by the Board of Directors concerning the existing policy for allowing waiver of a customer’s late fee if their account is in good standing (no late payments within the preceding 12 months). The discussion among Directors concerned potentially changing policy to require a 24-month good payment history, rather than 12 months.
The existing 12-month payment history requirement has worked effectively these past several years when dealing with customers who, for whatever reason, did not timely pay their bill.
While it is true that there are only six payments within a customer’s 12-month payment history, it is acknowledged that it is reasonable that a payment oversight or error could be made by a customer. A 12-month review of a customer’s account by staff is simple and quick, and customers who have received a waiver appreciate the relief. Moreover, the policy has been even more resourceful during these past couple of years for customers dealing with the economic downturn. The CCSD has more customers on payment plans ever as a result of the poor economy and lost jobs (approximately 30 billing accounts),
but staff is following Board direction and working within existing policies to assist customers in need as best possible.
Therefore, the Executive Committee and staff determined that the 12-month good payment history requirement is reasonable and should not be changed at this time.
VOLUNTARY LOT MERGER PROGRAM
Attached is the quarterly summary report for the CCSD’s Voluntary Lot Merger Program covering activity for April 2007-December 2009, which, unfortunately, again reflects no change in lot merger activity. The program has gone six (6) months with no lot merger activity, and we believe that is because of the increased SLO County costs for the merger process. However, per the Board’s direction and Resolution 62-2009 on December 14, 2009, the program funding
authorization for lot mergers was increased from $200 to $800 per customer, which is a renewed incentive for a property owner. Staff included the attached Voluntary Lot Merger Program flyer with the November/December 2009 utility bills reminding customers, and the same flyer will be mailed to vacant lot owners within the next few weeks.
A $33,000 increase in program revenues was recognized in December 2009 resulting from the EDU conversion and Agreement between the CCSD and Granville Homes, Inc., per Resolution 53-2009 dated October 22, 2009.
A total of 352 lots have been reduced at a cost of $19,987. The BRP (Buildout Reduction Program) goal for reduction by voluntary lot merger was 394 lots, and the program reached 89% of that goal in just two years. As reported to the Board on October 22, 2009, the BRP Citizens Finance Committee revisited its goal for lot mergers and recommended increasing it (from 40%) to 60% of the 986 “theoretical” lots identified for potential merger by the CCSD’s consultant working with the committee during its original program work, for a new total goal of
592 lots. The next quarterly report will reflect the program’s revised goal of 592 lots.
LITIGATION UPDATE
Attached is a breakdown of litigation costs expended by the CCSD in the four active cases against the CCSD. Remember, these expenditures are limited to research of available electronic records back to 2002. Also, these are TOTAL litigation expenses, not just fiscal year expenditures. The cases are abbreviated and costs rounded as follows:
· Berge–$44,000 (up $12,000 from $32,000 in 10/1/09 GM report);
· Lindsey—$37,000 (up $11,000 from $26,000 in 10/1/09 GM report);
· Warren (Landfill)—$6,000 (up $2,000 from $4,000 in 10/1/09 GM report); and
· Landwatch (Hawley)–$35,000 (up $13,000 from $22,000 in 10/1/09 GM report).
Berge v. CCSD
A judgment from the Second District Court of Appeals is expected any day now. While Mr. Berge has busied himself contacting other public agencies around SLO County and other jurisdictions that he has been successful in his appeal against the CCSD, the court’s judgment outlining its determination has not been released. Mr. Berge has sued the CCSD five (5) times within the past decade, and the CCSD has been victorious each time.
Lindsey v. CCSD
The writ proceeding in SLO Superior Court is scheduled for a continued case management conference on May 10, 2010. The adversary proceeding against CCSD by Joseph and Mary Lindsey in US Bankruptcy Court is scheduled for initial status conference on January 26, 2010.
Warren v. CCSD
SDRMA has expended $96,000 in defense costs for the Warren (Landfill) case. The Warren v. CCSD case has been settled and the settlement documents have been finalized among all parties. A continued case management conference is scheduled in SLO Superior Court on February 11, 2010, within which it is expected the settlement will be approved by the court.
The SDRMA will make its $5,000 settlement payment on behalf of the CCSD once all signatures are obtained on the settlement and release documents.
Landwatch (Hawley) v. CCSD
A settlement offer by Mrs. Cynthia Hawley of Landwatch was rejected by the CCSD because it was merely a repeat of the claims made in their lawsuit. The case is set for case management conference on January 25, 2010, in SLO Superior Court. The case has been reassigned to Judge Martin Tangeman.
Small Claims Court*
The CCSD was successful recently in Small Claims Court with a couple of cases filed by Barbara Owen and Dianne Kennedy against the CCSD for water damages resulting from a fire hydrant located at Wilton and Latham that was damaged on 4/20/09 by a “hit and run” driver. The court determined the CCSD is not responsible for any damages as a result of the incident.
Furthermore, the CCSD and SDRMA settled another fire hydrant matter (at Berwick and Wales on 5/31/08) before pursuing in Small Claims Court, wherein the CCSD received insurance company payments from the responsible parties for the vehicle accident damages (replacement hydrant, staff time, and materials) totaling $2,700.
*For matters in Small Claims Court, attorney appearances are not authorized; therefore, the CCSD General Manager represents the CCSD in court.
DISTRICT COUNSEL LEGAL SERVICES/LITIGATION EXPENSES
The attached spreadsheet updates the District Counsel legal services/litigation expenses paid during the first half of the FY 2009/2010 (July 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009). To summarize from my October 1, 2009, report to the Board:
§ I manage the District Counsel contract, and review and approve all invoices for District Counsel legal services/litigation expenses.
§ The contractual monthly retainer that the CCSD pays to Carmel & Naccasha for District Counsel legal services is $6,600 for 40 hours. This is offset after actual monthly services are rendered and tallied, with excess fees paid if more is due or credit balance forwarded in their next billing if there is a balance due the CCSD.
§ I work very close with the Carmel & Naccasha attorneys on the litigation matters, and I am aware that they are extremely conscientious with their services and expenditures rendered on behalf of the CCSD. The CCSD is not the only public agency they represent during these lean economic times.
§ District Counsel legal/litigation expenses are budgeted within the “Professional Services” line item in each CCSD department.
§ FY 2009/2010 budget projections for litigation services are our “best estimates,” based upon experience from the litigation team and management.
§ Current litigation expenses are for defending actions filed against the CCSD.
The attached spreadsheet shows the FY 2009/2010 budget versus actual Costs broken down by CCSD department for “District Counsel” legal services and “Litigation” services. The analysis also reflects the YTD timing expired (July-December 2009), or 50% of the fiscal year, and the relationship between the invoiced amounts paid compared with the approved budget.
The actual “District Counsel” expenditures for general legal services for the first half of the fiscal year total $43,465, which represents 54.5% of the budgeted total of $79,800. While a bit higher than the expected 50% FY time expiration, staff believes it to be manageable within the budget projection.
Actual expenditures for District Counsel “Litigation” services total $36,627, which represents 73.3% of the budgeted total of $50,000. This is obviously higher than our “best estimate” budget projection for the FY time expired, however, one case is settled (Warren v. CCSD), and another has gone through trial and appeal, and awaiting judgment (Berge v. CCSD). Minimal services are expected to be rendered as a result of litigation closure on these matters. CCSD litigation services for the remainder of the fiscal year will primarily center on trial
preparation for the two remaining actions against the CCSD—Lindsey v. CCSD and Landwatch (Hawley) v. CCSD. With a total budget balance of $13,000 for District Counsel litigation services, staff recommends a mid-year increase of $15,000 to cover for the remainder of FY 2009/2010. The Lindsey and Landwatch lawsuits center around water related issues, item. A mid-year review of the FY 2009/2010 will occur in an agenda item today.
CYBERNET CONSULTING, INC. – SCADA SETTLEMENT
Per the Board’s Resolution 58-2009 and direction on December 14, 2009, the SCADA Settlement and Release Agreement has been fully executed and satisfied. The settlement check was delivered to Cybernet and the CCSD simultaneously received the related project documents/reports and system programming passwords/wiring diagrams.
FEDERAL ADVOCATE – VAN SCOYOC ASSOCIATES
The December monthly report from the CCSD federal advocate is attached.
MISSION COUNTRY DISPOSAL 2010 CLEANUP DAYS
Mission Country Disposal’s annual cleanup days for 2010 are as follows:
Spring Cleanup is scheduled for April 26-30, 2010; and Fall Cleanup is scheduled for September 27-October 1, 2010.
During this time, extra recycling, green waste, and garbage is allowed on a customer’s regular pickup day. Larger items such as appliances, mattresses, and furniture require advance arrangements are made with Mission Country for pickup and a nominal fee.
HOLIDAY NOTICE
CCSD administrative offices and utility field operations will be closed on Monday, February 15, 2010, in observance of Presidents’ Day. Service interruptions and emergencies may be reported by calling our 24-hour answering service at 927-6223.
PARKS AND RECREATION
PROS COMMISSION
The PROS (Parks, Recreation and Open Space) Commission met at 10:00 a.m., on Tuesday, January 5, 2010. The Commission’s next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 2, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., at the Cambria Vets Hall (Dining Room).
FRP MANAGEMENT PLAN
The corresponding changes necessary to the Fiscalini Ranch Preserve Management Plan will be delayed until next month’s regular meeting, as a result of workload prioritization.
Last 5 posts by Amanda Rice
- Bygones Aren't Bygones For Cambria Healthcare District Board, It Seems
- Agenda for Thursday February 25 CCSD Meeting
- Open Invitation to Cambria Potluck Saturday, February 13, 2010 at 4pm
- CCSD Water Master Plan and Related Documents
- Cambria Community Healthcare District Board to Discuss Co-Location and Outsourcing
In response to Tammy Ruducks General Manager report:
Once again the CCSD provides “disinformation” to the general public when the general manager states: that “I (Berge) have busied myself contacting other SLO public agencies that we have been successful in our appeal”. This is not true. We have stated that we are sure that the appeal will provide clarity to the current case law that Judge Crandall used in his original decision on the current matter before the appellate court.
That issue is whether we are “potential customers” for district water and sewer services or we are “not potential customers” when the determination is required as part of the land use permitting process.
It is crystal clear that a land use permit must be denied if a applicant cannot provide written verification of water and/or sewer service from the local community service provider or provide an alternative source such as a well or septic (individual private disposal system). My minor use permit was “denied” by the County of San Luis Obispo and Judge Crandall ruled that I was a “potential user”.
The court did not take into consideration the LCP update which occurred after my denial in September 2007, and before the adoption of the CCSD final Program EIR for the desalination project in August, 2008, which caps water and/or sewer connections at 4650.
At all times during the permitting process, both before the LCP update and after, the CCSD General Manager and the CCSD Board of Directors have refused to provide written verification of water and sewer service as mandated in the “planning area standard” of the Local Coastal Program. This written verification is required under the permitting process in order for the Planning Director or the Planning Commission to make the detemination that there is adequate water and sewer capacity to serve the “proposed development” as required under Section 23.04.430 of the Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance and Public Works Policy #1 of the Coastal Plan and Policies document of the certified LCP.
The “only” response from the CCSD was from the district counsel in an opinion letter that stated that I (we) do not have a district wait list position, are not on the district wait list, therefore we are not “eligible” to obtain water and sewer services from the district (CCSD). With this opinion letter, the County denied the Minor Use Permit (MUP). It is important to note that the CCSD also refused to hold a mandatory public hearing on a variance request on our six properties. It is our understanding that the District Court of Appeals is going to “weigh in” on the need under the law for the variance hearing to be held as part of the upcoming ruling.
In all the prior cases, I had tried to obtain a will serve(intent to serve) letter as conditioned in a prior conditional certificate of compliance and the court had ruled that I was just a “potential user” and that the “County’s list” dovetailed the district’s own wait list. The CCSD, county, and the coastal commission have acknowledged that Ordinance 2-2000 of the CCSD has established that only those on the district wait list (CCSD list) can obtain an allocation for water and sewer service from the district. Those on the county’s list do not meet the CCSD criteria to be served. If this is the case, and the 4650 cap is in place, then only the “existing customers”, the 666 CCSD wait list holders, and a arbitrary 84 “extra meters” for the land conservancies to sell are to be served. The rest of use land owners are “not potential customers” of the CCSD, and the county wait list holders are left for dead.
The county in a written letter of response acknowledged that they “closed” the county list in 2007 “because” if provided confusion and the expectation of water and sewer service from the district, which the county cannot provide.
I feel sorry for the poor vacant land owners in Los Osos who were specially assessed by the Los Osos Community Services District as part of the 17.5 Million dollar bond proceeding in 2003-2004 and who are now not being denied their benefit right to sewer under the County of San Luis Obispo’s proposed sewer treatment plant project. They, the vacant land owners must continue to pay there current assessments without service when the plant is built, and their right to connect to sewer is conditioned upon a future water master plan, habitat conservation plan, etc…(Condition #86) even though sewer and water front their properties. THIS SOUNDS LIKE CAMBRIA ALL OVER AGAIN! Groundhog day lives again in Los Osos. Clearly this is another Coastal Commission agenda to limit development in the coastal zone by way of water.
As for UnClog Cambria, we can verify that the CCSD has once again failed to provide written verification of water and sewer service for those UnClog property owners wanting to process a coastal development permit. The district’s reply once again is that those owners are not “eligible” to receive services from the district. This is most important in that the newly updated LCP requires the county “deny” the completeness of an application (Gov. Code 65943) for a coastal development permit (land use permit) or construction permit (building permit) without the CCSD written verification of sewer and water service. (North Coast Area Plan community wide planning area standard CW-8). The CCSD also once again refused to hold a variance hearing.
This is where the line is being drawn in the sand at the appellate court in that approval of the land use permit is mandatory under the Coastal Act prior to submittal for a building permit.
If the land use permit is denied, then the taking case is “ripe” for a court to determine if the subject property has been taken by inverse condemnation, but only after a variance request is acted upon by the local agency to correct the possible taking action.
Gee, I wonder why the CCSD does not want to hold a variance hearing. Tis a puzzlement!
Stay tuned!
Gregg Berge