|
|
|
|
::: COMMUNITY NEWS Plans for river crossing are on hold due to RMA-PTF disagreement Expanded
Monday, August 8, 2005 Plans for a long-awaited pedestrian bridge between North and South were derailed Friday when the Rancho Murieta Association announced it hasn't been able to work out final details with the Pension Trust Fund of the Operating Engineers. "The Cosumnes Bridge project has been postponed due to the inability of the parties to reach agreement to obtain an easement to cross PTF's property to access the construction site," the RMA said in a statement issued Friday afternoon. The two organizations had negotiated for months. Construction of the bridge, with piers in the environmentally sensitive Cosumnes River, has to be done in a small summertime window of opportunity, before winter rains begin and the river starts to rise.
"Essentially the RMA could not gain permission on reasonable terms to gain access to PTF's property to construct the bridge," RMA General Manager Kathryn Henricksen said in an interview Friday. She said the association was "extremely disappointed" but wasn't giving up. "We have essentially stalled the project for this year." In a July 27 letter to the RMA, McMorgan & Co., the PTF's San Francisco investment manager, blamed the disagreement on the RMA's inability to protect the PTF from liability during construction. "Last Friday we called the RMA to discuss our concerns about the documents that were being provided because the land owners, in our view, are not properly protected from the risks associated with the construction of the bridge," wrote David R. Howard, McMorgan's director of real estate. "Apparently on advice of your counsel, that call was not accepted." Howard could not be reached for comment Friday. The PTF owns Rancho Murieta's undeveloped land and the land leased by the Country Club for its facilities. The company's recent letters to the RMA were copied to various community groups involved in the bridge project. RanchoMurieta.com requested the letters from the Community Services District, a public agency that serves as lead agency for the project. The bridge would be funded with $1.5 million from developer Reynen & Bardis under a deal struck in 2003. The deal, reached by the RMA, Reynen & Bardis and the county, allowed the builder to continue construction in the South in exchange for the money. Because the bridge is part of the community's trail system, the Parks Committee assumed responsibility for its construction. Upon completion, the bridge becomes the property of the RMA. This is the standard process for parks projects. The Parks Committee is comprised of five voting members -- two developer representatives, a CSD representative and two RMA representatives. The Parks Committee signed a construction contract last year with Viking Construction, owned by local resident Randy Jenco. The contract expires at the end of this year. At this time, the necessary permits are in place and Viking has completed the planning stages of the project at a cost of $305,000. The only thing keeping the bridge from being built is the lack of an easement agreement allowing access for construction, RMA President Paul Gumbinger said on Friday. "It's very simple. It's no big deal," he said. "That's what's frustrating about it. … There's never any end in sight when you're dealing with the Pension Trust Fund." The bridge, 12 feet wide and about 400 feet long, would allow pedestrians and golf carts to cross the river near the second hole of the North Course, connecting to Bridgehouse Lane in the Fairways. On the South, it would be near the second green and third tee of the South Course. In a related development, developer Robert J. Cassano, one of the managers of the PTF's proposed build-out development of Murieta, sent a letter to the Parks Committee and RMA this week, announcing his resignation from the committee. Cassano echoed the PTF's concerns, citing worries about the liability of committee members during construction. He also questioned the Parks Committee's legal standing and whether it could sign a binding contract with the bridge builder. (The following was added to the story on August 8, 2005.) The easement issue is about liability. Under the terms of the contract between the Parks Committee and Viking Construction, the contractor provides $5 million of insurance to protect landowners against liability while their property is accessed during construction. In his July 27 letter, Howard wrote that this arrangement was unacceptable because the Parks Committee "is not a financially responsible owner," has no assets, and lacks authority to build park facilities. The easement and maintenance agreement that the PTF proposes is attached to the letter, and Howard refers to it in the body of his letter. The letter says that "a financially
responsible owner developer" needs to take on the responsibility
of indemnifying the landowners during the construction period. Howard
writes that the RMA accepted the role of "easement holder
and responsible party in the first draft of the easement agreement
prepared by the RMA and sent to us in February for review." "They had the indemnification, they had everything they need. They should have just signed (the agreement)," said Gumbinger. Gumbinger said negotiations began when the RMA asked the PTF what it needed to grant the easements and was told a letter from the Country Club agreeing to an easement over the property it leases from the PTF would be required. At the RMA's request, the Country Club wrote a letter, dated December 29, 2004, that supports plans to build the bridge. "Your cooperation in granting the necessary easements will allow the construction to proceed as planned," wrote then-President Jean Bowles to Howard. "It was a very simple thing. That's how it started out," said Gumbinger. In January, a description of the easement was attached to the letter and sent to the PTF. Up until the time he left the RMA in March, then-General Manager Greg Vorster tried to contact the PTF, but the calls weren't returned, Gumbinger said. Meanwhile, the CSD, as lead agency, had accepted the initial environmental document and mitigated negative declaration for the project and Viking Construction was applying for and receiving permits. Eventually, Assistant General Manager Danise Hetland, who replaced Vorster as project manager for the bridge, received a request from Howard for additional material and the RMA brought in its attorneys "to work out all the details" with the PTF attorneys, Gumbinger recalled. He said there were several versions of the agreement and "we thought that we had finally arrived where everybody was happy." He said negotiations came to a halt after the PTF saw RanchoMurieta.com's coverage of the May RMA meeting, where the board voted to get legal opinions on the validity of the Letter Agreement, the Mutual Benefit Agreement and whether the county could require annexation of new development. The Rancho Murieta Development Concerned Citizens Committee had asked the board to get the opinions. The group's intentions were clear at the meeting, where RMDCCC members spoke of nullifying the MBA, and Director Dick Cox was applauded when he pointed out that the current RMA lawyers sue developers. On Friday, Gumbinger blamed the headline on RanchoMurieta.com's story for the PTF's anger, calling it "misleading." The headline read, "RMA wants legal advice on challenging three development issues." The first sentence of the story said the opinions "could result in overturning agreements negotiated by previous RMA boards and possibly lead to litigation." "All we asked for was a legal opinion," Gumbinger said. The PTF was "finally convinced" to resume negotiations on the easements, he said, and "we thought we had an agreement." Then the PTF went directly to the RMA, circumventing legal counsel. "They completely changed the agreement, which was not to our satisfaction," said Gumbinger. "They wanted much more than we were willing to give them." The easement agreement deviated from what the lawyers had worked out, according to Gumbinger. In his July 27 letter, Howard says the PTF is "still willing, at no cost" to give the RMA title "to all or a significant amount of the resource protection area" that runs along the Cosumnes River. The resource protection area was set aside by the county as open space in the mid-1970s in an effort to preserve the riparian environment. The area remained the property of the subdivision. Under the terms of the MBA, the PTF and the RMA agree to cooperate in an effort to persuade the county to terminate its easement rights over the area and the PTF agrees to provide the property to the RMA on the terms Howard cites in his letter. CSD General Manager Ed Crouse said
Friday that acquisition of the resource protection area "would
take everything off the table because then (the RMA) would own the
property," probably reducing the access and liability issue
to coming and going from the job site. Henricksen said the pros and cons of acquiring the property will be considered as one of the options outside the easement process that's being looked at by counsel. Gumbinger was dismissive, saying the resource protection area property wouldn't address the easement issue, and he suspects the PTF's motives in offering it to the association. "This could stop all construction on the South," Gumbinger said, referring to the South developer's obligation to provide a river crossing in exchange for being allowed to continue building on the South. The condition was altered in 2003 when the developer agreed to provide funding for the bridge, but not to build it. Henricksen said the Parks Committee will be advised of the situation with the bridge, and the two RMA representatives will be directed to analyze an "exit strategy" for the present contract. She said it remains to be seen whether the contract will be renegotiated or "start from scratch" because it depends on additional legal analysis of the role the RMA, Parks Committee, the county and other parties will play. RMA press release on the bridge project, released Friday: The Cosumnes Bridge
project has been postponed due to the inability of the parties to
reach agreement to obtain an easement to cross PTF's property to
access the construction site. Although believed to be close to agreement
with only one point left to resolve in early July, PTF issued a
completely altered easement agreement on July 29, 2005, dissolving
any hope of resolution in time to proceed with construction this
year. RMA's counsel issued a letter to PTF's attorney advising that time was of the essence, and urged them to have their client return to negotiations. However, the absence of cooperation caused weeks of delay, and precious time was wasted. RMA is analyzing its alternative jurisdiction options to achieve the bridge construction and provide the river crossing that was inherent in the developer's obligations to the community and its residents.
|
|
