MINUTES

The Board of Directors of Brooktrails Township Community Services District met in regular session February 28, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Brooktrails Community Center.

A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

B. ROLL CALL
Roll call showed the following Directors present: Williams, Ziady, Orth, Horrick and Skezas. Also present were General Manager Chapman and District Counsel Neary.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
None.

C. ADDITIONS/ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Directors agreed that the first item of the Action agenda would be the first item considered. Director Ziady asked for confirmation that Item 6 of the Action agenda included discussion of the Greenbelt Stewardship Plan and General Manager Chapman confirmed that it did.

D. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
1. February 14, 2006 - Tabled to next meeting.

E. SPECIAL PRESENTATION
2. Ross Walker - City Manager, City of Willits - General Manager Chapman thanked Mr. Walker and Tom Herman for attending. Mr. Walker said he felt the idea of mutual presentations between Brooktrails and Willits on a regular basis was a good idea. He said he would address the points included in General Manager Chapman's staff report and also answer any questions.

Park development activity: Willits intends to build two Little League fields and a soccer field in a cooperative effort with several organizations and has begun grading.

Commercial development activity: Mr. Walker said the biggest commercial development is improvements to the Safeway and its parking lot.

Flooding: Mr. Walker discussed that the only real damage from the flooding of the December 30 storm was the levee for the sewer plant.

Water: Mr. Walker said he could not say when Willits would reach a stress point in water capacity. In recent years the City has taken on at least two studies related to water supply.

Sewer: Mr. Walker noted that in the past few years there have been some "false starts" with regard to measuring Brooktrails' use of the sewer plant, and Brooktrails has been educating Willits in this area. Using the historical average until permanent metering is in place had been discussed six to eight months ago; Mr. Walker said he had not responded in writing to this point but it is being discussed, and they would be agreeable to using the historical average if nothing else can be worked out. He said that radar devices can measure much more accurately than they had thought, and they need to get these into place quickly. He said if Willits fails to do that, he wanted to let Brooktrails know they would work things out along the line to use the historical average.

Population at build-out: Mr. Walker said no one knows exactly what the growth rate will be; however, they know that for the decade 1990 - 2000, Willits did not grow; its rate was .1% . However, there has been recent interest in new development. Population figures in Tom Herman's report dated February 15, 2006 were noted as reflecting an anticipated growth rate of 1.7%; Mr. Walker confirmed that the population figures given are Brooktrails and Willits combined.

Tom Herman distributed a 14-page chronology of all of the steps accomplished by Willits so far on the sewer project to the directors. A lengthy discussion enrsued. He commented that to some extent the regional Water Board participated in the environmental process, and the EIR did include a wetlands remediation segment. However, when Willits was ready to apply for a 404 permit to place fill in a wetland, which included an analysis of different alternatives and a monitoring process, the Regional Board said you can't have wetlands as part of a wastewater treatment plant. But throughout the whole environmental process the Regional Board responded to comments in the draft EIR about this wetlands concept, which comments were incorporated in the final EIR, and never said that you can't include wetlands in a treatment process. The Regional Board recently said they had never before considered how wetlands were being impacted throughout California, and now there is a proposed bypass that will impact them, along with this proposed sewer plant, and they are very concerned about setting a precedent.

Mr. Herman said Willits received a verbal commitment in 2001 from the US Army Corps of Engineers (which will not give a written commitment until permitting is done) stating that since Willits' plan increased wetlands, then as long as every acre of seasonal wetland impacted had another acre of seasonal wetland created, this would offset the impact of the project. It is Willits' position that the Regional Board cannot complain about it since it was included in the draft EIR.

Director Orth asked about the 30 acres that might be usable; District Counsel Neary said there was a perceived problem with the Corps perhaps backing away from their earlier position. Mr. Herman said the Swank decision said that if a wetland was not connected to a perennial creek or stream or river, it is not really a wetland. Counsel Neary discussed two very recent Supreme Court decisions expanding the Swank decision which may be available as early as April 17. Mr. Walker said he was skeptical that the Supreme Court decisions would be helpful within the time frame they have. The City Council has selected April 1 as the deadline to choose their option.

Director Williams asked for more information on the Regional Board position on the wetlands. Mr. Walker said as best he could determine, the portions of the Basin Plan that the Regional Board is relying on for their interpretation have been in effect for several years. Director Williams said he understood the Regional Board's position was a staff position, and asked what position the Board itself was taking on it. Mr. Walker said they hadn't tested that, and that is one of the options they have. If they were to sue, they would take their preferred plan and tell the Regional Board staff they were not changing it, and they would take it to the full Board and say this interpretation was unjust and inappropriate. This would start with the local Board and proceed to the state Board. The process would take up to a year and a half and they would need a full legal assessment before choosing that course. Another option is that the Board might come back with an interpretation of the rule that will allow Willits a reasonable avenue in terms of dollars and cents.

Mr. Walker said that the City Council was trying to look at the problem practically; they could have built a mechanical plant but were driven by the previous inflexibility of the Regional Board as to effluent ratio, and therefore came up with the current design to accommodate that. Now there is more flexibility as to ratio. He assured the Board that Willits does have a backup plan, and the technology for that has improved. If Willits needs to move to a more mechanical plant, they will. However, Mr. Walker said, this idea might not be uniformly accepted by the City Council.

Director Orth asked if the Regional Board couldn't grant a variance based on the grandfathered issues. Mr. Herman said they certainly can; the Board bought into their request for a variance from 1:100 to 1:25, and that variance was actually recommended by the Regional Board's staff. They are more willing to grant a variance on the ratio, which is specifically allowed in the Basin Plan, than on the wetlands impact, for which there is no precedent in the Basin Plan. Mr. Walker concluded by saying that despite all the problems with the Regional Board, the flexibility on the dilution rate is very positive and could allow the project to be downsized.

Director Williams asked if there were any financial implications for Brooktrails in Willits' proceeding with the headworks project now. Mr. Herman said the implication is that this is part of the construction cost of the overall project. USDA said they would fund individual phases and how much each jurisdiction has to pay for that phase of construction must be determined. The new headworks is basically pumps, screens, filters and flow controls. They will have to use the existing plant in the very near term, so the new headworks works with the existing plant, and it will work with the proposed project, and if they have to change and go to a mechanical plan, it will work with that as well.

Director Ziady said it was good that Brooktrails and Willits have a positive and fruitful relationship, and thanked Mr. Walker and Mr. Herman, as did the other directors.

F. PUBLIC HEARING
None.

G. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

H. CONSENT CALENDAR
3. Review of Accounts Payable report and authorization to issue checks. Director Orth moved to approve the outstanding invoices; Director Horrick seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

4. Approval of disbursements for Clearwell / Backwash Ponds Project. Director Orth moved to approve the two checks listed; Director Horrick seconded and the motion carried unanimously.


I. ACTION AGENDA
5. Consideration of Resolution Honoring Warren Miller. This item was discussed prior to the presentation by Ross Walker. Fire Chief Schoeppner took the podium and said that Mr. Miller was unable to attend as he was suffering from a major illness. He said that Mr. Miller volunteered five years ago as a firefighter, but had some physical difficulties which prevented him from passing the physical agility test needed to become a firefighter, but agreed to perform many other activities such as hazard abatement, coordinating fundraisers and other events, and he has contributed over 5,000 hours in time to this work. Chief Schoeppner said the Fire Department considered him a brother and wished him the best. President Skezas read the resolution, No. 2006-5, in full for the audience. Director Horrick moved to adopt the resolution; Director Orth seconded, and said to the Fire Department volunteers in the audience that he was happy to see them holding up the tradition that Warren Miller had put so many hours into, and he knew how hard they worked.
Roll call vote was as follows:

AYES: Directors: Williams, Ziady, Orth, Horrick, Skezas
NOES: Directors: None
ABSENT: Directors: None

President Skezas presented the formal copy of the resolution to Chief Schoeppner and said this would be mounted and presented to Mr. Miller. Chief Schoeppner accepted the resolution on behalf of Mr. Miller and said Fire Department members would take it to Mr. Miller's home. A brief break was taken for photographs.

Fire Chief Schoeppner then introduced Sarah Azovedo, the new office assistant at the Fire Department, to the Board.

6. Discussion of Greenbelt Education Program. Director Ziady said that Jerry Garvey and Lynn West had been designing two abatement safety classes. Mr. Garvey said that the curriculum provided was to fulfill one of the goals in the draft Greenbelt Stewardship Plan -- to educate local residents to abate their own and greenbelt properties. Classes will be held March 25 and April 22. He said the morning would be a review of the points of the curriculum, then a lunch break and a field trip to the demonstration site, which would be the area already marked by the Par Course trail.

Director Orth said he wanted CERT to be pulled into this as they are looking for things to do. Bob Terry of CERT said he didn't think there was anything against possibly using CERT, although the primary use for CERT was direct support of Fire Department volunteers. Director Ziady said she anticipated CERT might be interested in neighborhood meetings they were working on with the Fire Safe Council. Mr. Garvey said he hoped to have Fire Department staff discuss enforcement as part of the classes.

Director Ziady then turned to proposed changes to various parts of the draft Greenbelt Stewardship Plan. She said she wanted to be very clear on terminology and to be sure the Board understood and approved definitions.

First she asked that the Board approve changing the name of "Community Park Zones" to "Neighborhood Greenbelt Zones." She also requested approval of the terminology used in the section discussing "Restoration in the Core Zone." She said the Stewardship Plan is not a master plan we are going to enact; the Plan is the safety net for the greenbelt and a guide for action terminology.

She reviewed the "Fire" section of the Plan (pp. 5-9). Changes proposed were the name change as cited earlier. Under "Implementation" on p. 7, the words "Emergency Fuel Reduction" were to be removed from subsection (b) so as not to limit funding sources, the words "community tax" were to be removed and replaced by the word "funds" under subsection (c), subsection (d) was to be removed entirely, and assorted clerical changes made.

An audience member asked about slash being burned. Director Ziady said that on private property and in the Border and Neighborhood Greenbelt zones, Brooktrails Fire Department standards would apply and these do allow burning of slash. In the Core Zone, Forest Practice standards would apply as laid out in Section D under Risk Reduction (p. 7) and slash cannot be burned.

Director Ziady said they hoped to implement one or two neighborhood meetings in the fall, working with the Fire Safe Council to foster neighborhood organization. The District will help by providing speakers, meeting places, schedules, paperwork, and maps of their neighborhood. She said they wanted to look at an individualized neighborhood fire reduction plan.

Director Orth moved to approve the change of name and the other changes listed for the draft Greenbelt Stewardship Plan Fire section. Director Williams seconded. Claudia Reed said she recalled that what kept the Board from adopting the entire plan when first presented was President Skezas' comment about the tax provision; she asked whether, since this wording was now changed, the Board was considering adopting it as a whole. Director Ziady said they are approving it section by section; she said it will be a guideline and the Board will have to look for ways to fund it. President Skezas said there are also longer-term issues in the draft Plan to be discussed. Director Williams said he thought taking it a piece at a time makes it much more digestible. The motion carried unanimously.

7. Consideration of emergency ordinance regarding allocation of hook-ups as DHS releases connections. District Counsel Neary recounted that applying to DHS for release of 10 additional connections had been approved at the last meeting, and included in the position paper on that issue was the intention to draft legislation to deter speculation in connections such as occurred with the hardship exemptions. He had drafted an emergency ordinance that would remain in effect for as long as it would take to adopt a more carefully drafted ordinance that would address a number of policy issues that would effectively prevent speculation in water connections. Referring to his draft, he said it updates the procedure set in place several years ago to differentiate between a construction meter and a permanent allocation, to limit allocations to the plans provided to prevent speculation, to prevent transfers during construction, and to provide clarity to the application process. He also noted that there were other policy decisions than those represented in the draft that the Board would have to address.

Counsel Neary noted some changes to be made to the draft.
1. The ordinance should repeal both Ordinance 121 and Ordinance 123 as well, and this should be inserted in Section 1.

2. In Section 2, subparagraph (3), third line down, the applicant has 45 days following receipt of the notice to provide the District with evidence of a building permit for the project, he felt that line should conclude with the words "as approved by the District Architect."

3. In the blank space left within that section, that time period should be 365 days.
Mr. Neary said the procedure is included for terminating applications and he felt that was self-explanatory. He noted this was an emergency ordinance which would remain in place for 30 days; at the next meeting the Board would need to propose a resolution to extend the emergency ordinance until such time as the Board acts on an ordinance that goes through normal channels.

Mr. Chapman said he would like to point out some of the policy issues the District has had. He said the big issue was whether the policy should be "first come, first served" versus first approval. He said historically the list has been based on time of submission, which is a very simple concept, but the reality is that people have submitted plans that were definitely incomplete and that has caused administrative problems. He asked for direction on "first done, first served" versus "first come, first served."

Director Ziady said you might want to set a reasonable time limit such as 90 days to get your plans approved or you would lose your place. She said you would have to make it well known to people that there is an architectural review board. She said she was not looking for profiteering or for someone coming in and building 100 houses and selling them over-market; she said there are too many people here who have worked very hard for what they've got.

Director Horrick said it should be just one single-family unit at a time for each individual on the list, whether you're an individual or a contractor that owns more than one lot. General Manager Chapman said that would come up on the next agenda item. President Skezas said we have an eight-plex on the list right now for one person. Director Orth supported Director Ziady's suggestion of a timeline for the architect to stamp the plans, because you want them to be proving they are serious about building. District Counsel Neary said we were veering off into policy issues other than the profiteering, which is the current issue. He felt you could address that issue by saying that an application was only good for 90 days. President Skezas said we could say the applicant has 90 days to get it fixed with the architect, whether it takes two, three or four more submissions, and that is in the applicant's hands. He has to meet the architect's requirements. District Counsel Neary said he was confused, because really we are addressing the profiteering issue, not the application process. President Skezas responded that there was a connection -- he said this addresses the first-come, first-served issue, such as coming in with plans you can pick up for a manufactured home and this puts you in line, but they get bounced a few times by our architect before he then approves them. Meanwhile, someone else walks in and gets approval right away. He said someone could come in with 100 sets of plans and get the next 100 spots provided they're willing to put down $279.78 for each, and he saw this as a profiteering issue.

Director Williams asked why this Board has taken the position (as a public entity) that it cares about what people do in the private real estate market in Brooktrails. He said you're going to create an extremely elaborate plan by a public entity to prevent profiteering in Brooktrails, and he said all he saw was lawsuits if this thing was set up. He said he didn't think the Board needed to worry about 8 or 9 connections a year, but he felt we need to worry about what we're going to do when there is no more moratorium, and how many people we're going to have on the list and how they're going to build. He said he was completely troubled by the extent to which we have an interest in how quickly permits that we can get approved by DHS are utilized. If there is a sense that we want somebody who gets a hookup to build, he said, it seems to him that you control this entire process by saying that they've got a certain amount of time from the time they get a permit to have that house built and signed off on by the County, and if they don't do it in that amount of time, they're out of luck. He said that he knew that it is essentially unworkable, because if they're halfway through building their house and we say you can't get your meter, all hell's going to break loose. He said he had not realized when he came on the Board that the other ordinances setting up the process we have right now were in place, and he was very comfortable doing the emergency ordinance because it solves the immediate problem, consistent with what is on the books. But, he said, when we start talking about policy we need to simplify this as much as possible because there clearly were some people in that audience who, he thought, see personal substantial exposure if the properties they've sold to people can't get built on for another four or five years, and the buyers come hunting for the person. He said part of what we're facing is that we have a lot of people with differing expectations of whether or not they can build, and there are some of those that we just can't meet, and he thought we shouldn't try to.

General Manager Chapman said in the past we didn't get into the market aspect at all. When the axe came down in 2003 there were a lot of people in the process due to bumping the connection fees (water/sewer) from $3,500 to $10,000. But now people know we're working under a moratorium umbrella. He said at prior meetings audience members were outraged that some people had gotten their connections through the exemption process, and literally sold their lot the next day. And that the issue of profiteering had been brought up by these people to the Board. He felt we are trying to address some of the hard criticism of the Board regarding profiteering. Director Williams said he understood the concern, but we should just tell people they didn't buy the lots from us; he said lots of the lots are still owned by people who have no intention of building.

Director Orth moved that the potential release of any number of new connections by DHS required an urgency ordinance, and moved to adopt emergency ordinance number 130 with an immediate effective date and a sunset of 30 days unless extended. Director Ziady seconded. Corrections to the draft were discussed and directed as: repealing Ordinance 123 as well as 121; changing in draft Section 3(d) the word allocation to applicant; inserting "as approved by the District Architect" at the end of subsection (1) of Section 2(c); deleting superfluous words at the end of the fourth "Whereas". Director Orth amended his motion to reflect these changes and Director Ziady seconded. The requirement of a four-fifths vote for passage was noted. Roll call vote was as follows:

AYES: Directors: Williams, Ziady, Orth, Horrick, Skezas
NOES: Directors: None
ABSENT: Directors: None

8. Discussion regarding quantity/blocks of hook-ups per individual applicant. General Manager Chapman noted comments by both Directors and the public in earlier meetings about this topic and asked for direction. Director Orth gave the example of the next person on the list being an eight-plex, which while requiring eight connections is still one project. Director Ziady focused instead on the problem of somebody buying up multiple lots in an unstable market. Director Williams said he assumed that almost no matter what the Board does in the policy area, anyone getting on the list would have to jump a number of hurdles that would not be inexpensive, for obtaining approved plans, and he noted that the process as set up requires the applicant to move fairly quickly. Ultimately, he said, they would build houses for people to live in, and he didn't know whether the Board should care whether a person does one spec house or ten. He said it seemed to him that our only responsibility is to provide water hook-ups, and an eight-plex is consistent with the zoning. He asked why we should care how they get from 'a' to 'z' when ultimately someone will live there. Director Ziady said she had to think about it; is your goal to provide housing, or whether if someone buys 100 lots, the prices that would be charged for those would be astronomical. She said she did not know if the Board had a moral imperative. Director Williams said that the person who talked about affordable housing at the last meeting [Kurt Ackermann] had raised an issue, and asked if Brooktrails had any legal responsibility vis-à-vis the County or the State for affordable housing. He said unless we have an absolute legal obligation to find or provide it, we cannot get into a position where we are responding to that. President Skezas said it is in the Specific Plan; Counsel Neary said it is the County Specific Plan, and we don't have any obligation to provide affordable housing, but to provide water and sewer. Director Orth said that due to natural conditions, here we have 10 single-family homes followed by an eight-plex and a duplex, and that's a good mixture. President Skezas said to General Manager Chapman that he sensed the Board's direction was to continue as before.

Director Horrick said after listening to Director Williams, he was backing off a bit on his opinion. Mr. Terry discussed government rationing of gas and other commodities during World War II as an example of government controlling a market and supply. Director Orth said he had thought of limiting an applicant to one lot per year, but that was very complex. Director Ziady said a small town near Santa Barbara has been dealing with this issue and asked if we could contact the towns of Summerland and Cambria and find out how they've been handling this. Director Williams questioned what will happen when we can provide enough water to go beyond the 1,500 houses; he said that politically we need to be as unambitious as possible. Director Ziady said she felt they needed to come back to the policy question after getting information from other communities. President Skezas summed up that the direction is to continue as the General Manager has been doing.

9. Consideration of water tank liner purchase. General Manager Chapman said he had budgeted $30,000 for Tank ? 14's new liner, but now needed to purchase a liner for Tank ? 5 instead, at a turn-key price quote from Flexi-Liner Corporation of $15,520.53. Director Horrick moved to authorize this purchase for a price not to exceed $16,000.00, to be paid from the Water Enterprise Reserve Fund. Director Williams seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

10. Pressure reducing station (Spring Creek). General Manager Chapman reminded the Board of a large line break in the Spring Creek area which was partially caused by high water pressure. He said the Spring Creek area has been the biggest area for leaks (seismic). He noted that a pressure reducing station was part of the budget, and would be paid from the Water Reserve Fund. Director Orth asked whether there could be a radio alert component to alert staff about large leaks. Mr. Chapman said if something triggers it, this will shut itself down so that the line doesn't drain, and confirmed this is the first one with that capability. Director Orth moved to authorize the purchase from Groeniger & Company of the pressure reducing station for a price not to exceed $16,000, to be paid from the Water Enterprise Fund. Director Ziady seconded. General Manager Chapman pointed out the location of the station as being about seven miles away and so far north on the water line system that it does not show on the wall map. The motion carried unanimously.

11. Consideration of SDRMA insurance claim on contaminated fire hose. General Manager Chapman said he had just met with FEMA yesterday. We would be purchasing $5,000 worth of fire hose and making an insurance claim; FEMA would pick up the $2,000 insurance deductible, and Mr. Chapman had cleared this with SDRMA in advance. Mr. Chapman said that SDRMA should pay their part immediately, on this fiscal year's books, but that most likely the FEMA payment would not appear until the next year's books. Director Orth moved to authorize a $5,000 claim to SDRMA followed by a $2,000 reimbursement claim to FEMA. Director Horrick seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

12. Consideration of FEMA Project Application for Federal Assistance and Resolution designating applicant's agent. General Manager Chapman said he had attended several meetings in recent weeks, and it was critical that the Board adopt the presented resolution appointing the District's agent for presentation and handling of the FEMA claim. Director Orth moved to adopt Resolution 2006-6 appointing the General Manager and Board President to represent the District and to proceed to process any and all FEMA claims. Director Horrick seconded, and asked if we were reimbursed the $130,000, what funds the money would go in. General Manager Chapman said FEMA has categories reflecting whether something must be fixed immediately, or within 18 months afterwards, and these are reimbursed in order of priority. An audit is guaranteed in the end. He gave an example of the emergency hiring of Bouthillier Construction on the day of the storm, and said he felt that would probably be reimbursed immediately. He said FEMA covers 75%, the state picks up 18-1/2%, and we have to pick up the balance. Roll call vote was as follows:

AYES: Directors: Williams, Ziady, Orth, Horrick, Skezas
NOES: Directors: None
ABSENT: Directors: None

13. Request of Bob Terry for appointment to BARC. The directors expressed their disappointment that Mr. Terry was leaving the Specific Plan Advisory Committee. Director Orth moved to appoint Bob Terry to the Brooktrails Architectural Review Commission for a term to expire December 31, 2009. Director Horrick seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

J. ADDITIONS TO FUTURE AGENDAS
None.

K. SPECIAL REPORTS
Directors: Director Ziady said there would be a meeting at the Fire Department concerning a portion of the Fire Safe Council grant for vegetative clearing within the District, which matter would probably be coming to the Board. Director Williams commented that he felt it would be to the Board's and the community's benefit if the time frame put out about the moratorium is realistic, so that people selling undeveloped lots have better information. Mr. Chapman said we are trying to tackle the rubber spillway now, but the second project (dredging and raising Lake Emily) will require a Prop. 218 election; he said it is very difficult to estimate time, with the unanswered variables involved with the permitting agencies. He said he felt the projects are doable, and the Division of Dams has just responded to our engineer that there was no problem with the Maacama Fault Line, or the ability to store water earlier as requested. He said he did believe the projects were doable within five to seven years, although we have to be persistent; however, he said the minute he says it is five years, it becomes gospel, and we have so many variables that we cannot possibly make that pronouncement.

Claudia Reed said she had written numerous articles about the timelines. Mr. Chapman said we would try to bring in the 218 engineers within the next six months, as soon as we find out what the dam will cost. He said one suggestion was that we combine our dredging with raising our dam 15' to coordinate the CEQA processes and not have to repeat the same process and $50,000 expense. Director Orth voice that the dredged material would be used at the dam face. Director Ziady said that dredging would still leave us short; you have to raise the dam. President Skezas said this was not an appropriate discussion at this point in the agenda, but he finished the discussion by saying that if the 218 election fails, all of our plans regarding the moratorium go out the window. He said then the public would come back and say, you said this; Director Williams said we do have to say it is an educated guess and not a guarantee.

District Counsel: None.

General Manager Chapman: Mr. Chapman said it appears we may be doing the core drilling tests on top of the dam within six weeks.


L. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None

M. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made to adjourn and President Skezas declared the meeting of February 28, 2006 closed at 9:53 p.m.


GEORGE C. SKEZAS
President


MICHAEL V. CHAPMAN
Secretary to the Board of Directors