HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.a. Questions and Answers re 20 Camino Monte Sol, Alamo (Anne Broome) (Handout distributed prior to meeting)S.A.
From: Earlene Millier J
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 10:49 AM
Subject: Questions about Item 5a (Camino Monte Sol Reimbursement) on the January 10 agenda
Several questions have been asked by Board Members about item 5a on the January 10 Board agenda.
Staff has prepared the following additional information:
1. When did Mr. Steffen install the main line extension?
The mainline extension was completed in 2003 and the date of acceptance (final inspection date) was
5/1/2003.
2. Does the reimbursement agreement have a sunset date?
Reimbursement accounts expire on the 20th anniversary of the date of acceptance of the mainline
extension. Reimbursement account 5542 will expire on 5/1/2023 and we will collect no further
reimbursement fees after that date.
3. What were the original number of RUEs included in the extension agreement with Steffen?
Originally, 10 Residential Unit Equivalents (RUE) could potentially connect to the mainline extension
installed by Steffen. Steffen owned several of the lots, and issued waivers to several other property
owners after reaching private agreements with them, leaving 4 RUE that could potentially pay
reimbursement fees to Steffen.
Later, one lot (owned by Steffen) split into 3 lots, which added 2 RUE to the count. Another lot split but
it was already counted as 2 RUE so that did not increase the RUE count. Ms. Broome built a second
living unit, which brought the RUE count up to 13. Of the 13, there are now 5 RUE that had or could pay
reimbursement fees to Steffen (the original 4 plus Broome's second living unit.)
4. If Ms. Broome removed the kitchen from the second living area would it still be subject to the
reimbursement fee?
The structure meets the District's definition of a second living unit (has a living /sleeping area, kitchen,
bathroom, and exterior entrance.) If it had been built without the kitchen then it would not meet the
District's definition of a second living unit and it would not be subject to the reimbursement fee or
capacity fee. Ms. Broome did pay the capacity fee for the second living unit, and the permit application
completed by her architect described it as a "second living unit ".
On occasion, property owners have suggested that they could remove the kitchen, or some portion of it,
to avoid paying fees, and our experience is that these kitchens are frequently re- installed after fees are
paid.
S. If the original home construction had included this extra unit would it have been charged two RUE
fees at that time?
The second living unit is 647 square feet of living space above a garage. It is a replacement structure for
an older carport/living unit that was on septic and was torn down. When the new structure was built it
was connected to the mainline extension via the lateral for the main house, and although a permit
application was started for it, no permit was issued, no fees were paid, and no inspection was conducted
of the second living unit's connection. If Ms. Broome had connected both units to the sanitary sewer at
the same time, either the former or the new second living unit, we would have collected two
reimbursement fees.
6. Why the long delays in paying any fees and charges?
Staff has been working with Ms. Broome since August 2010 to try to resolve this. The unpaid fees were
discovered during a routine review of Permit Counter records and attempts to collect the fees were
initiated. Staff has met with Ms. Broome and provided additional information to her via mail, email, and
telephone on several occasions.
Mr. Steffen is also planning to speak at the Board meeting Thursday. He is anxious for his
reimbusement, and has been following up regularly to make sure we collect it.
Earlene Millier, Engineering Assistant III
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 229 -7359
One additional response to a question from Tad that you may be interested in re the reimbursement
item and our obligation to collect. Ann
HiTad -
Here's the relevant code section:
6.20.240 District not liable
The District provides the reimbursement program as a convenience for installers and is not liable to
any person for failure to establish or collect reimbursements.
I'd have to check with Kent Alm, and I'm cc'ing him on this response so he can reply, but I think it's clear
that we are not responsible to the installer for not collecting a reimbursement fee.
Earlene