Rancho Heights Road Committee Meeting Minutes

 

Date:1/12/2008

 

Location:Mary Phillips Senior Center / Temecula

 

Time:9:00 A.M.  

 

Committee Members Present:J. Geller,  J. Szepkouski, K. Ebmeier, D. Eaton, C. Hill.  

Property Owners Present:   K. Ebmeier, J. Hill,  P. Burke, S. Bochinski, D. Price, B. Gill/Rieker 

M Schetter/ Killrer, B. Shaw.  

=====================================================================

 

Call to Order:

Chairman Geller called the meeting to order. 

 

Financial Report: 

The report was presented by Treasurer, Kirk Ebmeier.   Account balances, payables, receivables  and collection status were reviewed   Motion to accept Financial Report made by C. Hill , seconded by Geller.   Passed by all.   

 

Discussion of  Sunset Peak with property owners Gill/Rieker and Price:  While it was anticipated that Barbara Gill would have a proposal from property owners on Sunset Peak for the Committee to consider, she stated that the property owners she had spoken to wanted to know what the Committee thinks regarding what the next project will be.  D. Eaton gave a rough outline of a project proposed the previous evening by Sunset Peak property owners Corirossi and Bond to install a large steel culvert at the most critical point in the road.  Dennis Price also gave a short description of the proposed work as he understood it.   Paul Rieker stated that the primary problem was “90% ground water” and not the silt run-off from Corirossi’s grading project.  His point was that the problem was not new, and had always been due to run off from several properties, not just Corirossi’s.   Dennis Price contradicted that statement somewhat by saying that the water that ran down the road to the drain ran clear in previous winter rains but now was running muddy with silt which quickly blocked the culvert.  Kathy Ebmeier  asserted that the Committee was not responsible for altering the lay of the land on undeveloped properties along Sunset Peak; that it should be the property owners who organize and fund any such projects.

 

Stephen Bochinski gave an oral history of the roads which provided perspective and concluded that the Committee was not only unable to do work on Sunset Peak due to financial reasons, but that the Committee was not responsible for  excavation and drainage construction on the unpaved roads of our community..   An exchange between Bochinski and Rieker  ensued regarding the Road Committee’s original offer of donating culvert pipes  to Mr. Rieker which he failed to act upon.  

 

Jackie Hill suggested that it was important to forgo discussions of past history and past grievances and focus on fixing the problems in the future.  Barbara Gill agreed.  Committee member Craig Hill offered to work with all property owners on Sunset Peak, to chair a meeting and help guide them toward a solution to the drainage and grading problems.  He re-iterated that the Committee has an interest in seeing the work completed but is not responsible for this work nor able to offer financial help at this time.  D. Eaton noted that there are three miles of paved road between Pala-Temecula Rd and the bottom of Sunset Peak, and that the Committee’s primary responsibility is to maintain that paved road  which means “finish grading only”.  Mary Ann Schetter suggested that it was the responsibility of property owners on Sunset Peak to plan and finance projects to improve drainage conditions.  Property owners on Sunset Peak include Price, Corirossi, Bond, Gill, Gonzales, Chang, and Canella.  An email from Tom Bond thanking the Committee for providing the delivery of 20 truck loads of road base (which he spread) was read by J. Szepkouski.  

 

Chairman Geller stressed that it is not the  Committee’s  responsibility  to perform repairs or correct excavation and drainage issues on  “unpaved” roads   He clarified that the only aspect of maintenance on upaved roads which the  Road Committee is  responsible for is finish grading to maintain a passable surface in reasonable weather conditions.     

 

It was generally agreed that the property owners of Sunset Peak should come up with a plan for improving their road, consult with  the Committee on the plan, and the Committee will assist in ways that it can.   

 

Community Security :  There have been several incidents of trespassing in the Community in the past year, and it is suspected that at least some of the offenders are related to the members of  the Upper Pala Magee Road Committee who in the past were seeking a prescriptive easement to travel through Rancho Heights.   Several incidents of trespass by off-road riders on dirt bikes and ATVs have been observed.  They come up Magee Road from the southeast and use the connecting road to access Rancho Heights Road and trespass on the Roth Property.  S. Bochinski has confronted them twice and witnessed them riding several times.  He proposed a meeting between all parties  (Roth, RHRMC, Otto, UPMRC and the two ranches immediately south of Rancho Heights)  and their attorneys to resolve the problem.  It was agreed that a “Private Property” sign be posted at the point on Magee Road that Rancho Heights begins (the Otto Ranch) and that the notice of the posting be filed with the County Sheriff.   The possible installation of a gate at the Otto Ranch was discussed.  P. Burke suggested that the trespassers would simply find a way around the gate.   

 

Open Discussion with Community regarding Road Maintenance Financing:  It was noted that the last two attempts to get property owners to approve an increase in assessments had failed, but that if we do not find ways to finance road repair, our roads will begin to deteriorate dramatically and the cost of repair will increase correspondingly.  Chairman Geller noted that our “buying power had been reduced by two-thirds since 2004.”  Pavement at that time cost approximately $1 per square foot.  It now costs $3 per sq. ft. B. Shaw spoke on how he repeatedly engages his neighbors and attempts to persuade them to support increases in assessment, but to no avail.    P. Burke suggested the Committee and Community should look into alternate means of  raising funds.   B Gill suggested a possible investment in equipment that could crush rocks or produce asphalt paving.  S Bochinski recalled that some properties in the early days of the community were mined for decomposed granite for use on the then entirely dirt roads.  Bochinski noted that most people pay more for trash service each year than they do for the roads.  P Burke suggested the problem was the founding document, the Road Agreement, which was not a visionary document and did not provide a clear path for the future in a fast-growing community. 

 

It was noted that although a majority of voters had approved of the last proposal to double the assessments, the 65% requirement was not met and the proposal did not therefore pass.  Solutions were discussed and a committee to be chaired by Mary Ann Schetter and comprised of D Eaton, S. Bochinski and others to be named later would meet to discuss options and propose solutions.    Mary Ann had suggested that a study of the property owners would be beneficial in order to identify those who are voting against the proposals, echoing a suggestion that Jackie Hill had made at an earlier meeting.  It was generally agreed that non-resident property owners vote in the largest numbers against such proposals, or do not vote at all.  C. Hill suggested an amendment to change the 65% requirement for approval to 51%.   S. Bochinsky suggested finding a way to give the Committee the power to assess what is needed to maintain the roads

 

Adjournment:  The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 AM.  Property owners were invited by Chairman Geller to remain for another half hour to informally discuss ways to alleviate the financial problem.