About 80 people attended last night's meeting of the Mountain Meadows CSD to confront the board about the recently proposed doubling of road maintenance fees from $200 per year to $400 per year. I was one of them and was impressed by the attendance and participation.

Here's what we learned:

1. RECENT SPENDING ON ROADS. The board has spent $272,000 in recent months to bring in all that base rock we've been seeing dumped on the dirt roads in the district. Supposedly it will be spread 4-6 inches thick on each dirt road and oiled at a later date because we've exhausted our funds for the next two years in bringing in the base cover. There are 27 miles of road and only one grader is doing all the spreading. The grader is in poor condition and we only have one operator. Doesn't make sense to me either. And what happens to the base rock if it's left ungraded and unoiled for  more than a year? Seems something bad will happen. Anyone know how long it can sit out in lumps on the road?

2. FUTURE SPENDING ON ROADS. The board does not have an estimate for how much it will cost for all proposed road improvements for which it seeks the doubling of fees. I don't know about you, but I know when I plan a project I start with a budget so things don't get out of hand. It is absolutely ridiculous that the board called this special meeting and was unable to tell us what the increase was for or itemize out what the expenditures would be. Having already spent more than a quarter of a million dollars on base material alone, shouldn't they have this figured out yet?

3. THE MATH. There are 735 lots in Mountain Meadows. Each lot is currently assessed $200 per year for the CSD. This comes right out of our taxes. That makes $147,000 per year right now. Multiply that by two and under the proposed increase the CSD would get $294,000 per year. The board did not specify what it would do with those funds other than "improve the roads". What happens when all the road work is done? Will it cost nearly $300,000 per year to maintain them? What has happened to the $147,000 per year in the past 40 years? Most participants last night said they hadn't seen much work done in the past and were curious about where the money has gone.

4. PETITION SUBMITTED TO REORGANIZE??? A group of property owners submitted a petition of some sort and were rambling about the board being unlawful in that it must have five members while it only has three. I did not see the petition but heard it had only 33 names on it. They referenced Civil Code Section 61000 (a non-existent section). Today I realized they were referring to Government Code Section 61000 et seq., which governs Community Service Districts. There was some argument between the board and owners about the propriety and/or validity of the petition but it was getting late and loud and I kind of glossed over that discussion. Still, I looked up the pertinent code section, Govt. Code 61028, and doubt anyone has followed the protocol accordingly.  You can check it out too if you'd like by clicking here. Like I said, I didn't see the petition. If anyone has a copy, please fax it to me at 823-9492 as I'd like to see what's up.

5. HEATED COMMENTS. There were a lot of heated exchanges during the meeting. The board was not answering questions and people were not articulating their questions so it caused some frustration on both sides. A lot of comments and criticisms were regarding past problems. I believe much of the frustration resulted from the board mishandling this matter and not stepping up and admitting it and offering to redo things. It is a learning process for everyone but these people are elected to represent our interests and they haven't. The board member who ran the meeting was unprofessional and dismissive of many concerns of property owners and someone else should have taken control (i.e. the other two board members who sat silently) when he started belittling people and giving knee-jerk responses. He was unprepared and that's what caused a lot of the frustration. Don't call a meeting on something you are not ready to respond to questions about. Likewise, don't come to a meeting to discuss other topics and rehash old rivalries.

6. PERMANENT ROAD CREW? Not sure many folks caught this at the beginning, but the prospect of hiring permanent, full-time employees to act as a road crew was thrown out by a board member. This idea seems preposterous. The CSD has purchased old, used, and worn out equipment that will not last. It should contract out road maintenance and services as needed so that proper equipment is used by trained professionals that will be on the hook for worker's comp, keeping things up to code, and maintaining the place. Employees will add expense, confusion, and problems.

7. NO QUORUM SO WHO CARES? The board could not confirm how many ballots it received from the property owners. One board member did not understand what a quorum is. If you look at the code section, the board needed a quorum of property owners (more than 50%) to respond to the ballots. Of that quorum, they needed a majority to say yes in order to pass the doubling of the fees. Looking at the stack of ballots, it was nowhere near the 369 responses that would be required to even bother tallying the votes. That makes the whole proposal a moot point. I discussed this with the board after the meeting and advised that the ballot was confusing as it was combined with a letter that said the initiative was already approved by the board and that many people did not receive ballots. I suggested the redo the ballot and explain it better (many people thought it was a one time increase). I even offered to help draft something clear. Their response was that they didn't have the money to do it.

8. FEES MAY INCREASE BY 20% NEXT YEAR REGARDLESS. Under the Civil Code the CSD can increase the assessment by 20% per year without property owner approval. Based on comments by the board members it looks like they will do this to raise revenue for the money they've already spent on the base material. Of course, we're already in debt beyond what is allowable without property owner approval and we don't have the funds to oil and compact all that base material so it could be years before the materials already purchased (on a promissory note, no doubt) are paid for. The CSD cannot continue to incur debt at this rate and even a 20% increase ($40 x 735 = $29,400) will have a nominal effect on the $272,000 already on the books. Economics 101 tells us this is bad business practice.

Other issues were discussed and lots of confusing statements made. One of the problems is that community members do not attend meetings or exercise their rights. Perhaps this recent meeting will get more property owners involved in the CSD so we can make better decisions in the future. Right now it looks like we spent two years' worth of funds on a bunch of rubble. But I predict many attendees will grumble for a few days and then go back to their busy lives. Hopefully they won't and we can somehow band together and figure out what needs to be done (recall election? disbanding the CSD? formal audit?).

Whew, that was a lot.

Did anyone local attend this weekend's Earthdance event?

We stopped by on Saturday night and were disappointed to see fewer people there than at the Octoberfest and fewer cars than were at Cattleman's. By the time we arrived they were no longer taking tickets and just asking for a donation if you wanted to stay. Especially unfortunate was that the band that was playing when we arrived was quite good but only a few chilled folks were even watching the performance.

Factors that may have contributed to the low turnout in my opinion include a lack of local promotion (only heard about it in The Loop and through contacts at Old West Ranch), high ticket price ($50 for weekend without camping, $100 with camping - but no water, showers or amenities), distance from LA, other activities going on the same weekend, not being able to have a bonfire or central source of heat, and a competing major Earthdance in northern California.

It's sad because it would be nice to have such an event here annually. Based on what I saw I doubt Earthdance can afford to come back.

I was walking past City Hall the other day and saw the new motorcycle for our police department and wondered how prudent such a purchase is.

With our weather it seems the motorcycle will be useless 1/2 the year and with the streets and lack of traffic within city limits it seems the need for such a vehicle is not there. Anyone understand this phenomenon?

About a month ago I posted about the Mountain Meadows CSD sending notice to property owners that the annual road fee was doubling, here is the link to that post.

Looks like the Mountain Meadows CSD checked into the code sections and realized they needed a vote of property owners to approve such an increase because I got a letter with a ballot to vote on the increase this week.

Unfortunately, they only sent me one ballot for my three parcels. Funny because they sent me three notices about the increase last month. Not sure if I make copies and vote three times or what. Also unfortunate is the fact that the letter says ballots are due by September 19, 2007 -  the very same evening they are holding a "public meeting" about the fee increase - presumably after ballots are due. Seems kind of silly to hold a public meeting about something after the voting has closed - after all what good is a political debate the morning after the election???

In light of this, I encourage all the Mountain Meadows property owners to vote Nay on the ballots due by Sept. 19, send them in in a timely manner, then attend the meeting for more info. The CSD can always re-issue the ballots after they tell us what they plan to do with the extra $200,000 plus the doubling of the fees will do.

Some things to consider when you're voting:

1. The CSD can, once a year without a property owner vote, increase the fees by 20%. At $200 per year, they could increase by $40 this year. At $400 per year starting next year they could increase by $80 per year every year. This could get out of control quickly as each year they could increase it more without property owner approval.

2. Many of the proposed road improvements are one-time big expenses, like the paving of Dennison. We could agreed to a temporary increase of $200 per year per parcel for 5 years, then revert back to the old $200 per year fee or agree to reassess in a few years once the big improvements are made. An across the board, permanent increase is scary, especially given the power of the CSD to increase it each year thereafter by 20%.

3. There is a county code that says if we bring our roads up to county standards and turn them over to them, the county has to maintain them. Since the vehicle code applies to our private roads, no one monitors or enforces who is one them, and the sheriff patrols them, what do we have to lose by bringing them up to code and turning the maintenance over to them? This way our road maintenance could be eliminated almost entirely - at least for the main roads.

4. What about floating a bond to pay for the road improvements? I don't know much about how this works but think we could figure it out.

5. What about grants for development of rural CSDs?

6. Bear Valley Springs CSD, which supports a golf course, full time security, a lake, paved roads, and many other amenities, collects about $1100 per year from its property owners. Seems like if they can do all that for less than three times the proposed amount for Mountain Meadows' road fees we should be able to figure something out that is not permanent - or get a golf course too!!!

Note that I am not against the road improvements and know it will only increase our property values. I just want to make sure all options and implications are considered before we allow something that we don't quite understand to take place.

Either way, please send your ballots in on time and attend the meeting if you have an interest!!!