County loses track of funds for community service areas
Residents living in the 29 community service areas in San Benito
County may see their rates increased when consultants from NBS
Government Finance Group, a Gilroy-based firm, complete a study of
the costs for services.
County loses track of funds for community service areas
Residents living in the 29 community service areas in San Benito County may see their rates increased when consultants from NBS Government Finance Group, a Gilroy-based firm, complete a study of the costs for services.
“That’s the case, but these are services that otherwise the county taxpayers would not enjoy,” said Susan Thompson, the county administrative offiver.
The cost of the $148,000 contract to assess CSA services will be charged to each CSA proportionately, Thompson said.
The findings will be presented at the Nov. 25 and Dec. 16 meetings of the San Benito County Board of Supervisors, said Arman Nazemi, assistant director of public works.
The last fee increase was in the 2005-06 fiscal year because a state proposition passed then requires county officials to assess services before raising fees.
“We have been out of compliance with [Proposition] 218 since the day 218 was passed,” Thompson said, at a board meeting on Aug. 26.
CSA county staff should be able to divide how much money each CSA needs for operations by the number of parcels in that CSA, said Marvin Jones, a local resident who does not live in a CSA. Jones is chairman of the local Republican Central Committee and a regular at supervisor meetings.
“It is frustrating when the staff says they need help to do their job and the board of supervisors says, ‘OK,'” Jones said. “What is Jerry Lo’s office for? What is the finance office for?” The purpose of CSAs is for county officials to collect a fee for services that would place a burden on county coffers, such as roads maintenance or water treatment, according to documents from the San Benito County Board of Supervisors.
Establishing CSAs in unincorporated parts of counties is a standard practice, Nazemi said.
In San Benito County, any subdivision of five or more lots must have a CSA, according to the county subdivision ordinance. The purpose is to ensure that public facilities are maintained.”From observing what is going on in the CSAs, the minimal amount of work is being done at this point in time,” said Anthony Botelho, a supervisor for San Benito County. The reason could be lack of funds.
County officials manage 29 active CSAs, according to the documents. Fees for homeowners vary based on the cost of services.
“Each CSA has their own trust account,” said Jerry Lo, director of public works for San Benito County.
Public works staff deduct the cost of service from the CSA’s account but do not have real-time financial software for the CSAs, Lo said.
“Public works is the administrator,” Lo said. “We’ve been paying attention.”
To save money, some maintenance in the CSAs was deferred during the 2007-08 financial year, Lo said.
“Maybe when the books are closed we don’t have a negative [balance] that much because we don’t incur so many services in each CSA,” Lo said.
The financial year ended on June 30. The books will be closed Sept. 12, after press time, said Joe Paul Gonzalez, clerk-auditor-elections-recorder for San Benito County.
“They’ve collected the money, but what have they done?” asked a Cielo Vista CSA resident who did not want to be identified. “We’ve lived here five years and they haven’t repaved any roads.”
Cielo Vista CSA residents pay for road maintenance, a sewer operation, storm drain maintenance and utilities.
Based on cost projections for last year and the current year, three CSAs, including Cielo Vista, are predicted to have a negative fund balance by June 2009, according to the documents.
Cielo Vista CSA residents are projected to owe nearly $44,500. Dunneville residents would owe more than $53,600.
Rancho Larios residents have been in debt since at least the 2005-06 financial year. By July 2009, they will owe nearly $255,000, according to the projections.
“That’s several hundred dollars a month that they’ve been undercharging,” Jones said. “It’s not a whole lot different than some of the other things that have come up. It’s on Jerry Lo.”
Public works staff do not know where money to pay for CSA funds that ran negative came from, Nazemi said.
“We are in the process of doing the research on that question,” Gonzalez said.
In addition to other services, Dunneville residents pay for water treatment while Cielo Vista and Rancho Larios residents pay for sewer treatment.
In an emergency, county officials would pay for the cost of repairs, Lo said. CSA homeowners would eventually have to pay back the costs.
“The county is ultimately responsible,” Jones said. “If the staff doesn’t do their job properly, then the taxpayer, as always, picks up the tab.”
Residents who live in CSAs that are broke or in debt will receive essential services, Lo said. Routine maintenance will be deferred.
“People will [be able to] flush toilets,” Lo said.
Except in case of emergency, projects such as landscape maintenance, will be postponed. When residents approve fee increases, then public works officials will resume routine maintenance.
Public works staff do not know how soon a rate increase could be applied.
Residents of Stonegate, a 73-home gated community near Tres Pinos that depends on a single source of water, “blue valve” from the San Felipe Water Importation Project, are depending on county officials to quickly update the fee structure.
They need a backup source of water, but their CSA is predicted to only have $79 left at the end of the 2007-08 fiscal year. The CSA will fund the project through a rate increase for CSA members, an option that is only possible through the Proposition 218 process and voter approval.
“Stonegate is paying an additional $7,500 to expedite the [study],” said Mike Randle, president of the Stonegate Homeowners’ Association.
Once county officials determine the necessary cost increase they will notify Stonegate CSA customers, Randle said.
Proposition 218 provides for a voting process before county officials impose higher fees, Lo said.
“If each parcel pays the same fees, then you require a ballot,” he said.
Increases to water and wastewater fees do not normally require voter approval, Thompson said.
“If 50 percent of the customers protest it, then it fails, which will not happen in Stonegate,” Randle said.
Public works staff do not know if the CSA would receive service if the fee increase failed, Nazemi said.
“Our management of the CSAs is more of a secondary function rather than a primary function,” Botelho said. “We take care of a lot of the county’s needs first, which is very understandable, and then as we have time we work on the CSAs.”
Hiring a new CSA manager was a step in the right direction, Botelho said.
“We have to make sure that our future developments are in a position that they could be sustainable and are a positive asset to the county rather than a negative liability,” he said.
Top 10 monthly CSA Fees per household per month for 2008-09
$252 – Stonegate – storm drainage, utilities and water treatment
$175 – Rancho Larios – landscape, sewer, road maintenance, storm drainage, utilities
$148 – Dunneville – roads, storm drainage, water treatment and utilities
$90 – Cielo Vista – sewer, roads, storm drainage, water and utilities
$31 – Quail Hollow – landscape, roads, storm drainage and utilities
$30 – Oak Creek – roads, storm drainage, water treatment and utilities
$19 – Riverview Estates – landscape, roads, storm drainage and utilities
$17 – Holiday Estates – roads, storm drainage and utilities
$14 – Pacheco Creek Estates – sewer, roads and storm drainage
$7– Comstock – roads and storm drainage
