|
Monday's Internet Edition, January 05, 2009.
RMCSD candidates respond to tough questions
|
Photo by Wendy Smith
Rancho Murieta Community Services District board candidates (from left) Betty Ferraro, Wayne Kuntz, Steve Mobley and Jerry Pasek field questions from moderator Marion Craven and the public at the CSD Candidates’ Night on Monday, Oct. 13.
|
By Wendy Smith
River Valley Times Staff
-
Candidates Wayne Kuntz and Jerry Pasek (Incumbents) and Betty Ferraro and Steve Mobley responded to in-depth questions on Monday, Oct 13 during the Rancho Murieta Community Services District Candidates’ Night.
The candidates answered questions on topics ranging from security to development, to relationships with other community entities. They were also asked to define the role of director.
Moderator Marion Cravens asked questions based on a random draw, as well as questions from the public that were written on note cards. The candidate to whom the question was directed was allotted an initial two-minute response before the other candidates had a chance at a rebuttal.
One of the more extensively discussed issues was that of security. The question posed to Ferraro was, “What is your position on the role of security in regards to the recent legal advice given?”
Ferraro responded, “The security we have today is doing the best job in terms of what they can do, given the May meeting. Now we are trying to regroup. [Rancho Murieta Association] Compliance is working diligently to get non-architectural rules and CC&Rs modified. We are hoping that the Village will follow suit so that they will have more security as well. You may not see everything that is going on because it is happening behind the scenes, but we are doing a lot. Please be patient.”
Kuntz specifically cited the results of the security survey taken earlier this year. “What we have gotten back is that the residents say they don’t want to pay for a police force. They also don’t want security to be issuing them tickets that will go against their driving record. We are doing what we can to work with the RMA so that our security force can do more than they can now - without police powers,” he said.
Mobley, who has worked for the Sacramento Sheriffs Department for many years, said he supported the board’s decision to table talks about police presence until March. “I think that between security and the off-duty presence, that they are more than adequately able to deal with the needs of RM," said Mobley. "I think if things change in the future we can revisit it, but for now they are doing a superb job.”
Pasek wanted to remind residents that, even in the case of 100% enforcement from the Sheriff’s Department, there would still be the need for a community security force. “Sheriff’s would not enforce CC&Rs, so you would have to have dual enforcement for the small stuff,” he said.
The issue of timely arrival from the SSD was also discussed, with all candidates optimistic about the redistricting to the South Bureau. According to Mobley, there may be as many as six deputies and two sergeants based out of the South Bureau. However, Mobley stated that exact numbers and difference in response time would not be known until after Oct. 26 when the change takes place.
Several questions were posed about the role of a director, how the board interacts with constituents and how the board works in conjunction with the other community entities of RM.
In regards to cooperation, Ferraro emphasized the importance of bringing everyone to the table. “We have begun to do this with our Joint Security Committee. We need to formulate groups and come up with ideas that will better our community instead of pointing fingers at one another,” she said.
Ferraro also commented that it is important for the board to be held accountable to residents and their concerns, but that residents also needed to do their part. “We need to stop apathy. The people sitting on the board have the resident's best interests in mind, and they need to be accountable,” she said.
Kuntz pointed to the cooperation between the presidents on the RMA board, the RM Country Club board and the CSD board. “We get together once a month before the RMA and CSD board meetings. We don’t make decisions, but we are able to carry problems and ideas from one group to the other. It’s a wonderful relationship between the three groups instead of bickering and hassling,” said Kuntz.
Pasek, who is a former RM Country Club president, reemphasized the group's impact. “It’s a good forum to float ideas and get feedback through dialogue,” he said.
Mobley added, “It is important that each group be open minded and respectful of each other. Sometimes the relationships can become too adversarial."
In terms of board action on public concerns, both Pasek and Kuntz encouraged residents to write letters in order to be on the agenda. “We can’t act upon anything that is outside of the agenda. All we can do is to express that we have heard the concern, and return to it at the next meeting after it has been added to the agenda,” Kuntz said.
The candidates also discussed the return of the developers to the table. Ferraro and Kuntz both explained that the board is currently asking for a total of $200,000 before returning to negotiations.
Pasek made it clear that it is not the role of the CSD to actively seek development; that role lies with the county. Only in a situation where RM would become an incorporated city would that responsibility then fall to the CSD. “It is the county’s job to determine what happens in RM in terms of density, roads, etc.,” said Pasek.
All candidates stated that they were committed to taking the time to research all issues presented to the board, and that they sincerely wanted to help the community become the best version of itself. Elections will be held at the general elections on Nov. 4.
|
Online publication, Copyright 2005, The River Valley Times.
Web page design,
Copyright 2005, EZ Edit Web Publishing.
|
|
| |