::: COMMUNITY NEWS

At the Parks Committee meeting, Project Manager Danise Hetland, with the help of RMA Director Mel Standart, held up a map showing the trails that will lead to the pedestrian bridge. Standart attended the meeting as an observer.

As bridge funds run short, officials disagree over repaying legal expenses

Published Tuesday, December 19, 2006

As the community's pedestrian bridge neared completion, Parks Committee members held their first meeting in five months Nov. 29 and learned the final cost of the project will be close to $2 million.

With $1.6 million in funding currently available from the South developer, the committee reaffirmed an earlier decision to meet the shortfall with parks funds.

There is about $500,000 in the fund, which depends on new development for per-lot contributions.

The bridge is now in place across the Cosumnes River, but won't open for use by pedestrians, bicyclists and golf carts until post-and-cable fencing is installed along the trails and security cameras are in place. No date has been set for the opening, which is expected early next year.

The committee approved spending $79,000 for the fencing and $10,000 to $15,000 for the cameras, characterizing both as hard costs for the project, but clashed over the Rancho Murieta Association's use of almost $90,000 in project funds to reimburse its legal expenses.

Community Services District representatives questioned whether the Parks Committee had authorized the reimbursement.

"We haven't got enough money to pay off the bridge and yet we're reimbursing the RMA for legal expenses?" asked Dick Taylor, the CSD representative on the committee. "At whose instruction was the $88,351 presented to the county? … If you represented the Parks Committee, how does RMA stuff get in there?" he demanded of RMA Assistant General Manager Danise Hetland, the project manager.

Hetland said the county approved the expenditure as part of the additional $250,000 in developer funding the Board of Supervisors authorized for the project last year. "The county asked how the project was going and we let them know we had additional costs," she told the committee. "Those legal fees were what the county approved the cost on."

Of the $250,000, only the South developer's share of $71,500 has been paid to date. The balance will be paid as a per-lot fee when development takes place on the North. The cost sheet Hetland prepared for the committee lists the balance as the maximum amount receivable and notes "decreased density will probably result in decreased fees."

The additional costs the RMA provided to the county last year included the CSD's lead agency costs of $42,135 for the environmental document, $98,000 in contractor costs for delaying the project, a county permit, and more than $40,000 in RMA legal expenses related to its unsuccessful effort to acquire the easements from the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, the owner of the bridge site at that time.

"Whether those (costs) have actually been approved for payment is a separate matter," said CSD General Manager Ed Crouse at the Parks meeting. He also noted that the $250,000 did not include this year's costs.

Last year, the Parks Committee approved payment to the bridge contractor for the permit and delay costs and deferred reimbursement of the CSD's costs until 2009.

Taylor contended the committee hadn't approved payment for the RMA's legal expenses. RMA Director Jack Cooper, one of the two RMA representatives on the committee, said, "I would like to see that in writing."

While typical Parks projects are paid for with parks funds and become the property of the RMA, financing for the bridge project was secured through a 2003 agreement among the county, the RMA and South developer Reynen & Bardis. In exchange for providing $1,534,000 in upfront financing for construction of the bridge, the developer was relieved of a county-imposed requirement for a river crossing and allowed to continue building on the South in the then-hot real estate market. The RMA was charged with carrying out the bridge project under the authority of the Parks Committee.

The RMA isn't the only one to incur legal costs for the project. Between its lead agency role and legal expenses, the CSD has invested over $80,000 in the project, and the Country Club's legal costs are reported to be about $40,000. All three entities were involved in the intense legal effort to secure the easements that would allow the project to proceed this year.

The $339,000 shortfall estimate doesn't include CSD or Country Club legal expenses.

"I think the first step is to have the CSD and the Country Club submit bills to the Parks Committee and request payment," Crouse said. "Then the Parks Committee at that time can consider payment of those as funds are available or through another mechanism. … I think it would be appropriate at the same time for RMA to submit a like bill for their additional attorney's fees related to the successful negotiation."

Crouse said requests for reimbursement should be put on hold until all the hard costs of the project are paid "and then we'll figure out what soft costs should be paid on a priority basis."

Cooper indicated the RMA might consider returning the reimbursement money. "If everything we've discussed today is accurate, we can request that the money be returned until such time, et cetera, et cetera, or we can make a big deal out of it and go to war again, and I suggest we don't do that," he said.

The committee managed to sidestep at least one loaded issue by leaving the question of who should reserve for the bridge to RMA and CSD officials to discuss at their monthly Presidents Meeting.

The RMA was supposed to own the bridge but steadfastly refuses to own the bridge site, which leaves the CSD as the bridge owner. However, under the provisions of the easement agreement with the CSD, the RMA assumed all liability for the bridge and is responsible for operating and maintaining it.

The CSD acquired the site from the PTF to address liability issues during the construction phase that derailed the project last year.

The Parks Committee is expected to meet again in January.