The Parks Committee will change how funds are dispersed and consider becoming an independent entity in response to the Rancho Murieta Association's unauthorized withdrawals of $88,000 from the parks fund.

"I think it's important that we put the lid on the cookie jar," said Community Services District Director Dick Taylor at Thursday's committee meeting. Taylor is the CSD representative on the committee.

RMA Director Mike Martel supported removing the parks fund from RMA control and making the Parks Committee an independent entity, but he defended the RMA's action in taking the funds to reimburse its legal expenses for the pedestrian bridge in 2005 and 2006.

"I'm going to bring up that the RMA get out of this business," Martel said. "I plan on submitting that for board action based on the letter we got from CSD and some other stuff that we don't get involved in any finances of the parks fund ever, ever again."

Martel was referring to a letter the CSD sent to the RMA last week requesting the return of the funds. The letter is signed by CSD President Wayne Kuntz. It was authorized by the CSD board at its February meeting.

The formal request is the latest chapter in a long-running dispute over the funds.

At the committee meeting Thursday, Martel and RMA Financial Manager Colleen Hagyard maintained that the RMA was entitled to take the parks funds to reimburse its legal fees.

"The $250,000 that was requested from the county because of the cost overruns, that was something that happened after the (Parks Committee) had already approved those expenditures, had already recognized that they were going to front those costs without any expectation of reimbursement," Hagyard said. "So RMA taking it upon themselves to go to the county to ask for the funds back was a real advantage to the parks fund."

RMA was acting in the capacity of project manager when it supplied information on cost overruns at the county's request during the preparation of the permanent ordinance for the project.

At that time, Assistant General Manager Danise Hetland, the project manager, submitted information on overruns of $47,561 for a county permit, $42,135 for the project's environmental document, $44,506 for RMA legal fees and $100,000 for additional construction costs caused by delaying the project a year. The delay was due to the failure of negotiations between the RMA and Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers for easements.

Except for the RMA legal costs, all the overruns were reviewed and approved by the Parks Committee for payment from parks funds. The $42,135 cost of the environmental document was deferred until 2009.

Hagyard noted there were more overrun costs after the $250,000 was approved by the county Board of Supervisors in 2005, a year before construction on the bridge began. The ordinance replaced a temporary ordinance passed in 2003. The 2003 ordinance set up a bridge fund at the county to manage $1.5 million in developer funds that were obtained to build the bridge and jump-started the project.

To date, only $71,500 of the additional funding has been collected, not even enough to cover the RMA withdrawals. Reductions in development density make it unlikely the entire amount will be paid, which the county planning report prepared for the 2005 ordinance acknowledges.

In Martel's view, the county provided $250,000 in funding although overruns totaled $234,200 when the ordinance was passed so "the amount available for legal fees payment was $62,974 made on our presentation for the extra costs."

Taylor asked, "Say again?"

"There was $62,974 available for legal fees that was part of the presentation that was made to the county on RMA's behalf," Martel repeated.

"There was only $44,000 requested," Taylor said.

"It was a floating thing and the county instead of approving $234,000 gave us a round figure of $250,000 because it wasn't a science, it was an art," said Martel. "RMA owes $25,376.60 that was above and beyond what the county gave on the $250,000. The Parks Committee has the ability to reimburse the RMA if they so desire or not reimburse the RMA if they so desire. That's my opinion. That's what I think (is) the difference between the $250,000 and what the RMA paid themselves for legal fees."

CSD General Manager Ed Crouse said he thought the issue was whether disbursements without Parks Committee approval were justified since "$250,000 was approved as a total project budget by the county. ... Typically, in the past, the committee added to increases or change orders or supplemented the cost with approvals for those supplemental costs. I don't know whether we're ever going to resolve that issue of whether there was authority or not."

The 2003 finance agreement that is the basis for the ordinance gives the Parks Committee authority for expenditures for the project and requires the RMA to "diligently pursue the construction of the bridge."

The agreement is referenced several times in a March 2006 county letter authorizing the release of $71,500 paid into the county fund for the bridge. The RMA applied for the release of the funds.

Hagyard explained the management of the parks fund to the committee, saying funds are kept separate from RMA accounts in an investment account.

Under the present procedure, she said, the Parks Committee approves a project, and then the RMA general manager authorizes the release of funds from the investment account. Checks are signed by two officers of the RMA board, according to Hagyard. "The committee's approval stops at approving the project," she said.

Taylor said the Parks Committee should authorize the issuing of checks instead of the RMA general manager, and the committee's action should appear in the meeting minutes.

"I don't think (staff) should be writing the check without somebody giving them the OK," Martel said.

"That's why we're talking about this stuff, because it has happened," Taylor responded.

Martel said he would like to have no RMA staff involvement -- "the Parks Committee pays somebody to handle all the books and it's taken away from the CSD, the RMA and everybody. ... We've never put in a request to be reimbursed for the amount of money that RMA is spending on the parks."

"It's come up numerous times and it was basically a standoff, so basically everybody contributed their time," RMA Architectural Manager Mark Parsons replied.

"Ever since I've been here there was never any real policy because in the beginning there was very little (park) development done ... because there wasn't a whole lot of money to spend. ... The first big improvement that we ever did was Stonehouse Park. We had no park to speak of in the North," Parsons said. 

The developer built Riverview Park on the South.

Parsons said proposals for Stonehouse Park were brought to the committee, the costs were reviewed and the committee decided whether to go forward. A not-to-exceed limit was set on expenditures and they were tracked on a spreadsheet month by month. "If anything changed from those, we would have to come back to the committee with that information. ... That's how we handled it before," Parsons said.

During the bridge project, months went by without a Parks Committee meeting. The committee saw the RMA reimbursement for legal expenses when the final costs for the project were presented in November 2006. At that point, the committee had not met in five months.

Hagyard said the committee could obtain autonomy but it would entail getting a tax ID number, incorporation, insurance and liability coverage, and the members would become officers of the corporation.

"I think it's a great suggestion," said Martel.

"I don't believe that's what we're discussing right now," Taylor said. "All we're discussing, I believe, right now is the manner in which the receipt of deposits and the writing of checks might be done."

"I'm opposed to creating a separate entity," said Louise Dutton of Reynen & Bardis. Dutton, a development representative on the committee, said she wanted to see the invoices come to the committee for approval before funds were disbursed.

Parsons said in the past that proved to be very cumbersome. Hagyard said it was less cumbersome now "because we do have a checkbook on the park fund account now" but vendors wouldn't get paid on a timely basis within 30 days.

The committee voted to require prior approval of the Parks Committee for any expenditure from the parks fund.

The committee will continue to discuss making the committee a separate entity at future meetings.

Contract for South park design approved

The committee approved a $9,800 contract with Yamasaki Landscape Architecture to design a 2.6-acre park in Murieta South. The park is part of a 21-acre site that includes wetlands and a tree mitigation area. The park site appears in the environmental document for the Greens and on the Greens subdivision map.

The next step will be for the committee to meet with the contractor to discuss the project and arrange for two community meetings to take place.

Parsons said the goal of the first community meeting is to get input from residents for the design and to set priorities. A design proposal will be presented at the second community meeting.

Parsons said the plan is to move as quickly as possible on the project this spring. Dutton said she would like to see the committee meet with the designer "the sooner the better" instead of waiting until the committee's regularly scheduled March meeting.

Several South residents came to the committee two years ago with small children in tow to request the completion of the park, which would be at the southeastern tip of the community, beyond Colbert Drive.

The park was budgeted at $170,000 on a 2003 version of the parks facility plan. The estimate included a tot lot, open playing field, picnic area, grass and irrigation.

A Parks Committee update in August 2007 attached a budget of $62,000 to the project, including the design cost.

Dutton described the parks matrix as a working document that's not set in stone.

There is currently about $280,000 in the parks fund, which depends on fees triggered by new development.

The committee plans to review the parks matrix and the three versions of the Park Development Agreement at its March meeting.

The committee meets at 4 p.m. the fourth Thursday of the month at the RMA Building. There are five voting members -- two RMA, one CSD and two development representatives. The North developer position is currently vacant because the PTF hasn't designated a representative.