RMA
board lashes PTF for bridge negotiations
Recent
coverage: For at least
a year, North and South will remain divided by the Cosumnes
(August 16, 2005)
Published
Sunday, August 21, 2005
At the
board's monthly meeting, Rancho Murieta Association directors
blamed the Pension Trust Fund of the Operating Engineers
for delaying the construction of a $1.5 million pedestrian
bridge connecting North and South Murieta.
“This
is just another case of the Pension Trust Fund trying to
exert their will on the members of this community,”
RMA President Paul Gumbinger said at Tuesday's session.
He told
the public, as the RMA had on Aug. 5, that construction
of the bridge across the Cosumnes River had been delayed
after the PTF and RMA failed to reach agreement on a construction
easement agreement following months of negotiation.
Gumbinger
described himself as “a strong advocate of the bridge”
and said all the members of the board “are supportive
of the construction of the bridge. … We are extremely
hopeful that, over the course of the next nine months, the
contract will gain access rights to the construction site
and the bridge will be completed in 2006.”
Gumbinger said the impasse on the easement
issue occurred because the PTF “completely changed
the easement agreements and they were requiring indemnity
that had already been provided by the design/build contractor.”
He said the PTF access agreement also tried “to take
out the Parks Committee from the agreement, also (bridge
builder) Viking Construction. These (conditions) were all
unacceptable, and the board voted unanimously to reject
the PTF proposal.”
General Manager Kathryn Henricksen said
the liability issue was the only remaining issue in the
negotiation when the “completely altered document”
was sent to the RMA by PTF representative David R. Howard,
director of real estate for McMorgan & Co.
She said it was the consensus of the bridge
contractor, the board and RMA legal counsel “that
we were not going to be able to negotiate those alternative
issues” in time to allow the contractor to proceed
with bridge construction. The project’s very sensitive
timeline had come and gone, she explained.
The timeline depended on being able to construct
the bridge during the dry months of the year. Directors
faulted the PTF for knowing this and prolonging negotiations.
Director
Julie Sams and others described the rigors of dealing with
the PTF, with Sams pointing out that as soon as a condition
was satisfied, another was introduced. Gumbinger described
the process as “never-ending.”
“We don’t know what they want,”
said Director Dick Cox in response to resident John Weatherford’s
question about what the deal-breaker was. “They are
not clear,” said Sams. “They’re bleeding
this association.”
“The
Pension Trust Fund is making our life miserable, as they
have continued to make the life of the residents in Rancho
Murieta miserable for the last 30 years,” said Cox.
“… They seem to be extremely difficult, if not
impossible, people to deal with and at some point, it is
my opinion that we need to consider serious litigation against
them or they’re going to continue to stomp on us forever
and ever.”
“This was not a matter of simply buying
an insurance policy,” said Gumbinger of the liability
issue.
Sams
characterized the agreement
the PTF proposed as “not coherent,” but
said she couldn’t discuss it at the board meeting
because of “attorney-client privilege,” although
Howard bypassed both the PTF and the RMA attorneys when
he sent the agreement and a letter
to Gumbinger and sent copies to the Country Club, Parks
Committee, Community Services District and other entities
that are not involved in the negotiations between the RMA
and the PTF.
Nevertheless, Cox and Sams said the association
regards the correspondence as confidential information that
can’t be shared with members at this time.
Cox suggested at the meeting that the documents
had been “leaked” to RanchoMurieta.com, where
they are referenced in stories about the postponement of
the bridge project.
The
documents are public information since they were sent to
a governmental agency, the CSD, which provided them for
publication at RanchoMurieta.com’s request.
The
draft versions of the RMA easement agreements on RanchoMurieta.com
(available here
and here)
were included in the CSD June board packet posted on the
CSD’s web site. The RMA provided them to the CSD for
its approval.
In the RMA construction easement agreement,
the bridge contractor provides $5 million of insurance to
protect landowners against liability while their property
is accessed during construction under the terms of the contract
with the Parks Committee.
According to Howard’s letter, this
doesn’t meet the level of protection the PTF needs
and the Parks Committee cannot indemnify the PTF because
it is not “a financially responsible owner.”
It has no assets, and lacks the authority to build park
facilities, Howard wrote.
The
PTF proposes that the RMA accept the same level of responsibility
for liability in the construction phase of the bridge as
it is willing to assume after the bridge is built, when
the RMA will take ownership. Alternatively, Howard’s
letter proposes that the association take ownership of the
property along the river where the bridge will be built
and eliminate the need for a construction easement. This
offer is made in the Mutual Benefit Agreement, a document
the RMA board recently had assessed for its legal validity.
The bridge location is part of a strip of
land along either side of the Cosumnes River that the county
designated as a resource protection area in the 1970s.
Howard writes in his July 27 letter that
the PTF is “still willing, at no cost, to convey title
in fee to all or part of the resource protection area, in
a manner consistent with the MBA, to enable the pedestrian
bridge to be constructed over the river.”
Henricksen
has said the RMA would evaluate this offer as one of the
options it considers to get the project moving again. But
at Tuesday’s meeting, there was no discussion of any
alternatives to the easement agreement.
Cox blamed “a previous board president”
for “taking the onus off the back of the developer
… to build that bridge before he built his 602nd home.
And RMA got involved in that and the ordinance got amended.
… I am absolutely convinced that we are in a world
of hurt on this bridge crossing. One of my fears is it’s
going to cost each and every one of us a lot of money in
the future because this action was taken by previous boards
to put that ordinance together. There’s not much we
can do about it. We’re stuck. We’re going to
have to see the thing through.”
Cox was referring to a condition of development
in a county ordinance that required the South developer
to provide a river crossing predicated on the use of the
Yellow Bridge before building permits beyond the 600th were
issued.
In 2003,
South developer Reynen
& Bardis applied to the county for relief from the
condition after plans for using the Yellow Bridge were rejected
by the Country Club. The RMA submitted the bridge plan to
the county and the county applied pressure to the developer
by holding firm on issuing the permits. The plan was viewed
at the time as the community’s last chance for a river
crossing funded by development.
In exchange
for providing $450,000 as its share and guaranteeing the
rest of the funds, Reynen & Bardis was released from
the obligation to provide a river crossing and allowed to
continue building on the South. The ordinance requiring
a river crossing was amended to reflect this change.
Cox
called the RMA’s action coming “to the rescue
of the developer so they could get the income from the rooftops.
Because that’s what it was all about. It was about
income from rooftops,” he said.
He added,
“It was my understanding that the then-president of
the RMA board handled these negotiations behind the back
of the board, went off on his own … the developer
maybe asked for relief but he jumped right in the middle
of it and as a result we got an agreement making us responsible
for building this bridge and that bridge was never the responsibility
of the Rancho Murieta Association and should never have
been the responsibility of the builder to do that.”
“Actually,
that’s not how it happened,” said Gumbinger,
who was vice president of the board at the time. “It
was done in concert with open discussions with the county,
with RMA, with Reynen & Bardis, with CSD. All of the
players were there, county counsel and so on. … Reynen
& Bardis had requested relief of the condition. They
had gone and talked to all the members of the board and
the supervisors who were about to act and relieve them of
that condition because they were saying (the bridge) was
impossible.”
The bridge plan was first discussed at an
RMA
meeting in December 2002.
Before
the agreement was finalized in August 2003, the bridge issue
was discussed at many public sessions, including RMA board
meetings, two Cosumnes Community Planning Advisory Council
meetings (one of which was held at the RMA Building), the
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and Parks Committee
meetings.
Draft
budget calls for 3.4 percent increase
The
draft budget for next year calls for a 3.4 percent increase
in the budget, which would add $3.97 to dues, Director Dick
Cox reported. The actual budget will be worked out at the
budget workshop in September.
At the
Finance Committee meeting earlier in the day, the committee
reviewed the draft budget, which allots $40,000 for legal
expenses next year. This year $30,000 was budgeted and legal
expenses as of the end of July totaled $41,000, according
to General Manager Kathryn Henricksen.
Board
reaffirms gate policy
The
board voted to keep the gate
policy it approved in May. The policy was the first
item of business for the restructured Joint Security Committee
in July. At that time, Community Services District directors
and RMA directors, along with their general managers, went
through the document item by item and agreed on revisions
to the policy during a session that lasted over two hours.
Director Mike Martel said the CSD hadn’t
submitted comments on the policy before it was approved
and questioned why the district should have another opportunity
to do so. President Paul Gumbinger, who attended the Joint
Security Committee meeting, remarked, “I guess when
they really took a look at it, … they had some problems
with implementation. … They finally started looking
at it.”
The CSD Security Committee members reviewed
the policy last November and added their written comments
to those made by an RMA sub-committee. The resulting document
was sent back to the RMA and included in the November board
packet for discussion and review. At the November RMA meeting,
the issue was sidetracked by Martel and Director Dick Cox,
who instead discussed the possibility of the RMA taking
over various gate security functions from CSD Security.
At Tuesday’s meeting, they discussed
CSD Security’s role at the gate and their belief that
the RMA should exercise more control over gate operations.
“They don’t get to set the terms. They can set
the price,” said Martel of the CSD.
Cox
noticed that the “old issue” of raising the
gate arm to avoid traffic backups onto Highway 16 at the
North Gate was included in the Joint Security discussion.
Cox and other directors maintain that it’s the responsibility
of Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol to manage
backups. One of the committee’s revisions removed
the provision from the policy, leaving the matter to the
discretion of the gate officer, as RMA General Manager Kathryn
Henricksen had suggested at the Joint Security meeting.
“A
development cannot back up traffic onto a highway and cause
a safety hazard,” said Director Julie Sams. She said
loop detectors are required in the road to activate early-warning
traffic signals and prevent backups.
“CSD
has an obligation as an agency to work with Caltrans to
implement … the appropriate traffic signals to keep
that physical hazard from occurring. … CSD not addressing
it means they’re not talking to Caltrans. …
CSD has made us stuck” between preventing a hazard
and being able to refuse entry, she said.
When asked for his reaction, CSD General
Manager Ed Crouse said the dialogue must be between the
RMA, as the owner of the roads, and Caltrans because “the
CSD as a public agency has no authority over private roads.
… They’re the ones that need to solve the problem
about access to and from the community via the highway.”
Both RMA and the CSD view moving the gate
farther up the Parkway and adding another lane for residents
as the solution to the backup problem. The funding mechanism
for a new gate was triggered last year when the Retreat
and Residences of Murieta Hills subdivisions were sold.
Under the terms of the Mutual Benefit Agreement,
$1.4 million of developer money is allotted for the project.
When
Gumbinger was asked about the gate at the Joint Security
meeting, he said plans for the design of the guard station
were still being reviewed. The lane configuration was approved
months ago, when the members of an ad hoc committee recommended
the option that preserves the left turn on Lago.
The gate policy calls for every visitor
to receive a tag at an estimated yearly cost of $19,000,
according to the draft budget for 2006.
The
board voted to keep the policy as it is.
-
The
board elected Director Dick Cox treasurer, replacing
Director Mike Martel. Cox held the position before he
resigned for health reasons in May. Cox will also serve
as chairman of the Finance Committee, one of the responsibilities
of the position.
-
Martel
was selected to replace former director Elliot Sevier
as vice president.
-
Director Julie Sams was named chair of the Communications
Committee to replace Sevier, who moved from the community
in July. President Paul Gumbinger said he would continue
to act as a liaison to the committee until she was up
to speed.
-
Larry Weaver was appointed to the Compliance Committee
as an alternate.
-
The board decided to put a towing policy out to the
membership for comments after a motion to send the policy
back to the Compliance Committee failed to receive a
second. The Governing Documents Committee recommended
sending the policy back to Compliance after reviewing
it and finding it complicated, cumbersome and unenforceable.
