Rattina bids a fond farewell & takes a few parthian ... I mean parting ... shots

Greetings, friends, neighbors, & readers:

My family and I have enjoyed our six years of living in the enchanted forest of Rio Nido, but finally made the difficult decision to relocate closer to my husband's high-tech job in Silicon Valley. I've felt privileged to work with so many caring, competent, and talented neighbors towards creating positive change in our community, through the Rio Nido Task Force (now called Friends of Rio Nido). I also loved volunteering at Guerneville Elementary School, leading my daughter's Brownies/Daisies (now Juniors/Brownies) girl scout troop, teaching Sunday School at the Guerneville Community Church, helping launch the Rio Nido Community Garden, volunteering at the Monte Rio Preschool (now STARS), doing face painting for various fundraisers, and being a member of the Rio Nido Home Owners Association.

I'll also miss covering news and issues in this blog, my "West County Buzz" column for the (now defunct) Russian River Monthly, and the "Rockin' Rio Nido" column I co-wrote for the Sonoma County Gazette with my local BFF & partner in crime, Elena Chronis. She and Kim Link have taken over the Rio Nido column and are doing a fabulous job. I hope Elena will also take over my blog, but we're still trying to hash that out.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with the following random comments & observations:

• Go Rio Nido!: I'm excited & amazed by how much we've accomplished over the past couple of years! Our once neglected & overlooked little backwater River hamlet is finally getting some well-deserved attention & wherewithal to attain the potential this friendly, intimate, verdantly beautiful, redwood-shaded village deserves. The Rio Nido Task Force has evolved into Friends of Rio Nido (FRN)-- an organization with bylaws, an elected board, & strong direction -- which already operates informally as a positively influential force & which also seeks legal, non-profit status. FRN's Board members & various committees have already obtained $18K in RRROC funds for July's successful clean-up (thank you Jennifer Ostrom), plus lots of County help with street & directional signs (thank you Matt Malick). Kim Holliday from the Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee (RRROC) & John Uniack (retired RRROC member) have also worked behind the scenes to obtain funding for immensely helpful projects in the works, including the purchase of land for nearby public beach access.
  
  
• Go Rio Nido Roadhouse!: Against all odds, Brad Metzger has managed to maintain former owners, Dee & Midge's long-standing & beloved summer community traditions, while bringing it into the 21st century and serving the year-round community. The Roadhouse is now a successful year-round business, restaurant, bar, and music venue, and also informally functions as a community center with a pool, summer water aerobics, and site for local meetings and benefits. Thank you Brad, and Kim Link (the manager).
  
  
• Why does Justin Lacey from RRROC hate Rio Nido?: He consistently rants & votes against everything we -- and RRROC member Kim Holliday -- propose for Rio Nido at the RRROC meetings. I, and many others, have found this to be highly offensive. Lacey says he's mad because Holliday's facts & statistics (regarding redevelopment expenditures for towns in the redevelopment area) are inaccurate & that Rio Nido has had more than its share -- even though it definitely HASN'T. Lacey obviously can't stand working with Holliday, which others who've worked with her may understand ... BUT ... the reason why Holliday's agendas so frequently prevail is because she's smart & well-prepared; her facts are always impeccably presented & thorough; plus, her engineering background & technical consulting experience (formerly for Accenture, now as a freelancer for various companies) has enabled her to decipher arcane County processes & work with others towards getting things done. Go Kim!
  
  I sure hope that Lacey has calmed down since the last time I spoke with him back in June. When I asked him about his hostile reaction to projects advocated by Rio Nido residents & stakeholders, he started frothing at the mouth & expressing resentment about how people from Rio Nido come to meetings as a bloc to "make demands." But wasn't RRROC established specifically in order to ensure that communities have a voice in the County's redevelopment processes? Rio Nido-ans have finally learned from other River communities -- most notably Monte Rio & Villa Grande -- & have become more organized. That's a good thing, & I hope more neighborhoods do the same.
  
  Folks from Guerneville, Monte Rio, and Rio Nido need to work together -- not against each other -- if they want the business climate, economics, and quality of life on the River to improve. Nobody should be scorned for getting neighbors organized to seek funds and resources for their immediate communities. Instead, these communities should serve as inspiration to other neighborhoods on the River. Spiteful bickering has no place in an environment where services are being ruthlessly cut and so many folks have exhausted their unemployment benefits and still can't find work.
  
  If Lacey's still ranting, somebody PLEASE tell him to get a GRIP!
  
  
• Summer business is booming -- keep it up!: I feel sad about all the recession casualties and will miss Vine Life, River Mist, Mosaic, and others. But I'm thrilled that 2011 finally brings a well-deserved prosperous summer for locals. Boon Spa & Restaurant, the Monte Rio Theater/Cafe, the Rio Nido Roadhouse, the Village Inn, the Guerneville 5 & 10, & others seem to be thriving now. I've also noticed some new restaurants and storefronts -- including Big Bottom Deli, Sharon's Emporium, Trio, etc. -- who seem to be kicking butt. I also visited Johnson's Beach this summer and was happy to see it bustling with activity. I'm also delighted that the new owners of the historic Guerneville Theater & also Monte Rio's Pink Elephant have made so much progress. Keep up the good work!
  
  
• Re-Launch FOGS, for pete's sake: I don't know what happened with the Friends of Guerneville School (FOGS). During my daughter's last year there, FOGS appeared to be moribund. Yet my fellow parents frequently approached me to ask when the next non-existent meeting was happening, and how they could get involved. Alas, I was similarly clueless concerning the status of FOGS. I hope someone can get FOGS going again, because the Guerneville School really needs the money. It's scary that the only recent fundraisers for enrichment activities have been conducted by the group of parents who organized two successive annual Spaghetti Cook-Offs at the Rio Nido Roadhouse -- with no support from FOGS -- & managed to raise over $7000.
  
  The principal and teachers are doing a great job with the school-- last year, our students' test scores earned us a "California Distinguished School Award" -- but I don't know how long they can keep getting these great results with so little money. Guerneville Elementary/Middle School needs classroom volunteers, money for extracurricular programs, and also classroom supplies. Recent cuts in educational funding have been brutal, and too many parents are too impoverished to make up the difference. They may want to talk to the folks from Monte Rio Elementary/Middle School -- which seems to have a lot of parent involvement and funding. Their test scores aren't as high, but they're still decent, and they're gaining a strong reputation for their art, music, and performing arts programs.

Th-th-th-that's all folks! Farewell, and good luck to all of you on the River, and thank you all for your support. Since "San Jose Rattina" simply doesn't sound right, this is my last post for this blog.

Tom Lynch resigns from RRROC, what's the world coming to?

Good grief, Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee members seem to be fleeing in droves! Could the long hours and no pay have something to do with it? After losing three members in less than a year (John Uniack, Chris Auzston, and Elio "Buck" Sierra), Tom Lynch tendered his formal resignation this evening. RRROC now has one vacancy each for the residential tenants and residential home owners categories.

During tonight's monthly RRROC meeting at the Guerneville Veterans Hall, Lynch explained that he wanted to avoid possible "conflicts of interest" due to his construction company's future projects (ooh! ooh! What are they?). His fellow RRROC members said they would miss him, and so will I. His jovial presence has calmed many contentious meetings. Dan Fein stated that "Tom is the longest-serving member of RRROC -- 25 years."

Lynch also currently serves on the Zoning Board. He first appeared on the local political scene as "Manure Man" in 1985, when he protested Santa Rosa's "accidentally" discharging 750 gallons of "effluent" into the Russian River by covering four entire city blocks around Santa Rosa's City Hall with manure. He almost made it to the City Hall steps before running out of you-know-what.

Oddly enough, Lynch was not pulled over by law enforcement, despite the fact that he was driving a tractor and broadcast manure spreader around Santa Rosa at three in the morning. Our very own aggressive, ticket-mongering CHP officer -- who currently rules River Road with an iron fist -- probably still wore diapers back in those halcyon days.

On a positive note, RRROC voted to FINALLY approve the Design Guidelines document for the Russian River Corridor, provisional on a few "insubstantial" changes, plus further discussion on recommended architectural styles (based on ones which have historically existed in the area), as suggested by RRROC member Catherine Young. She was concerned that the lovely, Beaux-Arts style of the "Bank Building" in Guerneville would be disallowed for future projects because it wasn't specifically included on the list (for some interesting insights about why the "Bank Building" was abandoned over 20 years ago, read local author Stephen Pizzo's book Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans).

Gee, the Design Guidelines only took 9 years to complete. But it was definitely worth the wait. I should know, because Yolanda Solano from the Permit and Resources Management Department read all 56 pages aloud to us during the meeting. I now understand why my 8-year-old daughter needs me to read her to sleep. Yet many folks expressed appreciation for the vastly-improved, simpler, more accessible, and better organized document Solano presented. She responded graciously by giving credit to the Design Guidelines Task Group* for their extensive reviews and recommendations.

RRROC also formally approved the list of individuals appointed to the Brand Working Task Group by Kathleen Kane from the Community Development Commission (CDC) . The newly-created task group will work with the County's consultant, Great Destination Strategies (GDS) and the CDC towards providing advice and feedback towards developing, branding, and facilitating our local tourism industry. For some reason, this makes me cringe, even though I know that tourism is our economic life-blood.

The Brand Working Task group will include some of the most dynamic business people in our community, including Margaret Kennett, Jan Russel, Peter Hacket, Lynette McClean, Justin Lacy, Kim Holliday, Robin Johnson, Phillip Hampton, Camille La Grande, and Lynn Crescione.

Speaking of Lynn Crescione, she totally kicks butt as the new RRROC chairperson. Meetings used to drone on and on for as long as four hours. Nowadays, decisions are quickly made, and meetings last two hours maximum. This may have something to do with the fact that budget cuts have tightened funding guidelines. Nonetheless, Crescione deserves major high-fives for achieving briefer, more tightly-focused meetings.

In addition, Jennifer Howse from the CDC reported on the following projects:

• $4 million in redevelopment funds are available for non-housing projects and $800K for housing-related projects this year.
• Sweet Water Springs' improvements are moving along.
• the Guerneville River Park's clean-up is completed.
• the RiverKeeper's park is connected to a new and more reliable water supply.
• 24 businesses have applied for commercial rehabilitation loans and seven have been approved for design grants.
• Two housing rehabilitation projects are in the development stage. No new loans have been approved.
  
• The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Graffiti Abatement Program will be presented to the Board of Supervisors in October. If approved, the program will receive funding.
• The Fife Creek Commons (formerly known as the 5th & Mill Affordable Housing Project) has begun. The mediation, final report, relocation of the Marshall House, and grading permit paperwork have been completed. Financing is expected to close by early October.
• Improvements to the Rusky Rika Dacha apartment complex on River Rd. have been completed.
• Great Destinations Strategies (GDS) will hold a public meeting on November 3rd to discuss brand concepts.
  

________________________________________
* The following individuals have served on the Design Guidelines Task Group: Jon DeSalvio, Lynn Crescione, Catherine Young, George Zastrow, Carl Combs, Mitch Gordon, and Gillian Hayes.

Spring has sprung!

“Life is like a rainbow. You need both the sun and the rain to make its colors appear.”

-- Anonymous proverb

Rainbows … Today’s crazy weather – blue skies and warm sunshine one moment, glowering gray clouds and torrential monsoons the next – brought rainbows galore! This evening, students and staff from the Guerneville After School program paused from the evening rush to gawk at the vibrantly-hued rainbow arching over the misty, redwood-forested hills – with a second, fainter rainbow echoing above it – and take snapshots with their cell phones and digital cameras. Five minutes later, my daughter and I pulled into the Safeway parking lot to find folks marveling over the same twin rainbows. I hope they bring us some luck, better times, and maybe even the proverbial Leprechaun’s Pot O’ Gold!

Spring has sprung in Rio Nido: Neighbors have been enjoying the warm weather, sunshine, and the pungent aroma of freshly-mown onion grass. Yep, we’ve got lots of onion grass here in Rio Nido. And if you’ve been walking by the Post Office and Fire Station on warm evenings, you may have noticed Kelsey practicing with her flaming hula hoop. The Rio Nido Community Garden continues to flourish, and several new members signed up at the annual spring meeting on March 13^th. The local canines are getting frisky at the adjacent Dog Park, and they’re not the only ones … Love is in the air. At least two new romantic couples have formed amongst our neighbors since our last Rio Nido Home Owners Association event!

Speaking of interesting new couples … Dennis Judd and Vince Walsh were reportedly seen having a late-evening tête-á-tête at the Rio Nido Road House. Oh-la-la! And who exactly are Dennis Judd and Vince Walsh, you may ask? Mr. Judd is a local developer who purchased the decrepit remains of the historic Rio Nido Lodge last November. Mr. Walsh is the owner of various trashy, derelict eyesores … oops, I meant to say “vacant, buildable lots” … adjacent to the Lodge. Sigh … [cue: mooney eyes and tiny bubble hearts floating around in the air] … sounds like a match made in heaven.

Alas, not all relationships last … newly-elected RRROC members abruptly resign: Elio “Buck” Sierra and Chris AuZsten resigned from the Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee (RRROC) only two months into their four-year elected terms. In an email to his constituents, Mr. AuZsten cited “health reasons” causing some of us to surmise that carrying out his RRROC duties placed him in mortal danger of being bored to death. This is a danged shame, as both Mr. Sierra and Mr. AuZsten have lots of energy, experience, and interesting ideas.

PSSST! In case you’ve been noticing the sudden epidemic of stylin’ manicures … the ladies are getting them at Fulton Nails on 2550 Guerneville Road, Santa Rosa. Which employs a new “nail gel” technology which costs $35, takes less than an hour, and lasts for 4-6 weeks! Woo hoo! No more ratty fingernails for the Rattina!

New Rio Nido Lodge owner meets with neighbors

November 7 2009, Rio Nido -- 25 Rio Nido residents gathered on the site of the former Rio Nido Lodge (also known as the Rio Nido Inn) at 11:30am to meet with the new property owner, Dennis Judd. After a series of informal conversations with board members from RNHOA, the Sebastopol-based developer and owner of Cipora Properties invited everyone to a meeting so he could introduce himself and address concerns about his plans for the site.

This was definitely a good move on Mr. Judd's part, considering recent problems with the Rio Nido Lodge property itself; ongoing drug, crime and quality of life issues associated with other multi-unit dwellings in the area; and the fact that Mr. Judd's company specializes in affordable housing and recently obtained Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee (RRROC) approval for redevelopment funds for a nearby complex on River Road. For indeed, some neighbors did come with metaphorical torches and pitchforks in hand.

As people arrived, Mr. Judd and Stephen Radeljik (also from Cipora Properties) passed out fliers with an endorsement from local activist and West County Gazette publisher Vesta Copestakes vouching for Mr. Judd's care for the communities in which he builds on one side and yours truly's Top 10 possible uses for the Rio Nido Inn on the other side. (Flattery will get you everywhere!)

Mr. Judd described how he has worked with communities towards "transforming properties" and has been brainstorming with the Community Development Commission about possible uses. Many Rio Nido residents assumed that Mr. Judd intends to build another low-income housing complex. Instead, Mr. Judd stated that he really doesn't know "where to go with this property," and that he wants to work with us on "not just this property, but the whole community." He pointed out that since purchasing the property -- which has caused major problems due to neglect by the previous owner -- things have already gotten better. Mr. Judd also mentioned that the squatters are gone and "now it's cleaned up." He added that "this sends a message that we're a beautiful community & we're not going to put up with this crap any more."

With apparent sincerity, Mr. Judd restated that he hasn't made a decision on what do do with the Rio Nido Lodge and is open to suggestions. He even mentioned that his first choice would be to build a "healing retreat" for people suffering from cancer. Mr. Judd mentioned that he has also discussed the possibility of a specialty grocery store with the owner of a small, local chain. Amazingly enough, it appears that even real estate developers are capable of idealistic dreams.

Ironically, previous Rio Nido Inn owner Jim Friedman had also purchased the now-notorious Faerie Ring Campground in Guerneville back in 2001 with the intention of transforming it into "a healing retreat." Matthew Hagan wrote a flattering article, "Lord of the Faerie Ring", in the December 2004 issue of the North Bay Bohemian. Quel ironie. Then again, Mr. Friedman is a prison psychologist at San Quentin who rented out his various local properties to people just getting out of prison and recovering (or NOT recovering) methamphetamine addicts. So what would you expect?

Following Mr. Judd's presentation, a heated discussion followed. Rio Nido resident and writer Justin Raimondo (whose vituperative response to a conciliatory piece Mr. Judd wrote for the the West County Gazette will appear in next week's issue) adamantly warned Mr. Judd that "We WILL oppose affordable housing." (Not River Rattina -- the way things are going, she might actually need one of those units soon!) Others expressed similar levels of skepticism.

"I don't think you know what we're going through. We have three section eight houses which are drug houses," exclaimed second-generation resident Amy Merkel Rose. A discussion of problem properties throughout Rio Nido ensued, with one neighbor adding, "When the roach motel closed, the roaches scattered but they didn't go away." and another chiming in, "Some of them live next door to me." Dennis Judd responded, "You're fighting an issue that isn't real. I'm not saying we're going to do low income housing. We're still investigating." Justin Raimondo shot back, "You mean you bought a building for $250K without knowing what you'd do with it?" Another neighbor agreed, "That seems suspect."

Sonoma County Planning Commission member, Tom Lynch came to Mr. Judd's defense, explaining that the previous two owners did not have sufficient resources to maintain the Rio Nido Inn. "Dennis Judd has resources to wrok with the community. He fixes up and cleans up neighborhoods. You can't stereotype the tenants ... Can't we get some more positive energy to move forward?" Tom Lynch is also a local resident, member of RRROC, and the owner of a construction company. He is also a long-time friend of Mr. Judd who has worked on projects for him.

Domenic Farnocchia, RNHOA board member, Russian River Parks & Recreation board member, and unofficial Mayor of Rio Nido, inquired of Mr. Judd, "Are you willing to be part of this neighborhood and do a neighborhood watch with us?" The meeting wound down as local resident Randie Johnson asked, "How can we -- as your neighbors -- help you to come to a decision?" Tom Lynch stated that the next steps would be to hav a larger neighborhood meeting with more advance notice and someone from the Community Development Commission present. A tour of the vandalized and gutted -- but now clean -- interior followed.

The next meeting will be held Saturday December 12 2009, 2:00pm at the Rio Nido Lodge and facilitated by Mr. Farnocchia. Panelists are to include: Mark Krug, executive director of the Community Development Commission; 5th District Supervisor Efren Carrillo, RNHOA board member Doug Meisner, local resident and RRROC candidate Chris Auzten, and others.

RRROC approves $400K loan for affordable housing complex in Rio Nido

The man who recently purchased the Rio Nido Inn for $250K recently received approval for a $400K loan from RRROC to develop a previously purchased Rio Nido property as an affordable rental housing complex. According to Frank Robertson's October 28 article in the Sonoma West Times & News, RRROC's approval of this loan to Sebastopol developer Dennis Judd "raised some eyebrows."

Although the Board of Supervisors hasn't written any checks yet, the County rarely -- if ever -- denies funding for an RRROC-recommended project.

Folks here in Rio Nido have already started grumbling about the "Ruska Rika Dacha rental housing compound" on River Road and Mr. Judd's intentions for the Rio Nido Inn. But I'm still on the fence. After all, if the job market doesn't improve soon, some of us might need to live there. (Psst, Tom Lynch ... can you please send me an application?)

SO ... gee, now that we know the identity of the developer formerly known as "Mr. X", I wonder what Mr. Judd wants to do with the Rio Nido Inn?

I'm still crossing my fingers & hoping we can persuade Mr. Judd, RRROC, & other People With Money to restore the Inn & turn it into some fabulous, historic high-end hotel. They could even buy the enormous & adjacent parking lot fronting River Road (also for sale), restore the old fountain, & landscape a lush garden like the one at the Coronado Hotel in San Diego.

Didn't I once hear something about Mike Reilly and others floating around the possibility of a luxury resort at the entrance to Rio Nido? This would have the advantage of providing jobs within walking distance to all those folks living down the street.

Leslie Warren writes up RRROC meetings for "Russian River Times"

I want to thank Leslie Warren, a reporter for the Russian River Times. She did a great job of re-capping the last RRROC meeting in detail & I hope she'll continue doing so (especially since I missed the latest one held last Thursday). Elise Roberts also provides good coverage in her articles for the Russian River Monthly, but the Times seems to devote more column space for this purpose. Pick up the latest issue for all the juicy details on the sounding of the final death knell for the Monte Rio Sewer District (at least in its current form).

RRROC Election Results

Thanks to Kristin Thurman-Fein & the West Sonoma County Talk (WSCTalk) newsgroup on Yahoo, I have the RRROC election results below. All of the incumbents were re-elected. Apparently, only 1,061 people voted in this election. This surprises me given the high level of controversy & Mr. Guccione's ceaseless campaigning in the Safeway parking lot.

PROPERTY OWNERS

Dan Fein - 554 (ELECTED)

Lloyd Guccione - 408

Adrian Hardesty - 99

BUSINESS OWNERS

Lynn Crescione - 624 (ELECTED)

Gary Getchell - 610 (ELECTED)

George Zastrow - 499

Bellamy - 184

RENTERS

Sheila Peterson - 693 (ELECTED,UNOPPOSED)

Catherine Young - 749 (ELECTED,UNOPPOSED)

Also, I was mistaken in my previous post: If you & your partner/spouse live here & own your home, both of you CAN vote. One of you can vote as a homeowner & one can vote as a resident.

While Mr. Fein received a clear majority of the votes, enough votes were given to Mr. Guccione, Mr. Hardesty (who publicly withdrew during last month's Candidate Forum & asked his supporters to vote for Mr. Fein), Mr. Zastrow & Mr. Bellamy to indicate that a sizable number of people do want to see some changes with RRROC. Then again, a huge majority of people didn't even bother to vote, which could either signify a general satisfaction with RRROC's activities, or (more likely), a general lack of caring one way or the other.

I believe that RRROC needs to continue its work towards getting more people involved in the process. There seems to be a perception that RRROC is totally powerless & has no influence whatsoever on redevelopment projects planned by the County. This IS somewhat true, because RRROC has no budget or actual authority to initiate projects. However, it does play a valuable role towards ensuring that redevelopment funds are only allocated to projects which are supported by the community, & towards ensuring that our community has a voice in how projects will proceed. Organizations & individuals propose projects for funding & RRROC votes on whether or not to recommend funding for these projects. The County can say "No" to a recommended project (as they did with funding for Sweetwater's upgrades), but they cannot fund any projects which are not recommended by RRROC (which contributed to the demise of the poorly-devised plans for the Monte Rio Sewer system).

11.15.2007 RRROC Meeting: Of Ballot Mishaps, Pulling the Plug on Redevelopment, & No Money For Administrative Support

Thursday, 11.15.2007, Guerneville Veterans Hall – The RRROC meeting has been moved up to 6pm & I believe this is a vast improvement. Alas, I (& a couple of others) arrived late due to an event at the Guerneville School held on the same evening.

PLEASE NOTE: I just picked up the latest Russian River Times & discovered their reporter had to leave the meeting shortly before I arrived, & that this blog posting picks up where their account leaves off. So if you read the Russian River Times' article & then my blog, you'll get the whole meeting.

The following topics were discussed while some folks passionately participated & others attempted to disguise the fact that they were slowly nodding off into dreamland.

1. RRROC elections & mishaps with sending out the ballots;
2. Responding to Mike Reilly & the Board of Supervisors' Subcommittee's recommendation to stop redevelopment projects throughout the County & return money to the "General Fund;"
3. No funds for hiring secretary to record RRROC & subcommittee meeting minutes. (But plenty of money -- which comes out of redevelopment funds allocated to the Russian River Project Area -- for paying hourly wages to amateurs who devote weeks to mismanaging voter registration & property tax databases with Excel spreadsheets for the purpose of managing the upcoming elections, instead of hiring someone with experience in databases & database programming.

RRROC Election Ballots Gone Awry

The item currently under discussion is the upcoming RRROC election on December 11^th. Despite the hard work of John Uniak & others who serve on the Elections subcommittee, things have gone terribly wrong. For lack of a more apt -- & printable – word, let’s call it a “fustercluck.” Ballots were sent to businesses & residents based on a combination of voter registration & property tax records. Somehow, some folks received multiple ballots, while others received none. Meanwhile, others were incorrectly addressed & were hence returned.

Personally, I think the whole process is rather odd, to begin with. I mean, why waste money on mailing ballots instead of having people go to a polling station? And there's another thing .. According to the letter which came with my husband’s & my ballots, voter eligibility is based on the following categories: (1) Owner of “real property” in the project area (what, owning virtual property in “Second Life” doesn’t count?); (2) Owner of a business operating within the project area; (3) Any resident of the project area.

BUT (& here’s a BIG but): If one’s eligibility is based on owning property, only ONE BALLOT may be cast per property, regardless of the number of owners on record. Does this mean that, since my husband & I jointly own our home, only one of us can vote? But if we were renting an apartment together, we could both vote? So basically, I only count as half a person? I haven’t heard of anything like this since the “three-fifths compromise” back in 1787 in which African American slaves would be counted as 3/5ths of a person for distribution purposes of taxation & proportional representation. Hmph.

But ANYway … moving on … Somehow the folks at CDC messed up while sending out the ballots.

During the Public Comments part of this agenda item, several people spoke & asked questions:

1. Zelda Michaels of Monte Rio admonished, “If you weren’t tracking the dollars & hours [for charging administration fees from redevelopment funds], then you would have had the time to do this correctly!” I was totally on her tip until she went a little too far & added, “THE FISH STINKS FROM THE HEAD!” (ummm ... What fish? A dead fish? & why does it only stink from its head? Because that's where its nose is located?).
   
2. A gentleman named “Craig” took the stand & commenced to fawn obsequiously upon Kathleen Kane & Boris Sztorch of the CDC. “Thank you,” he burbled, “for doing a great job.” (Kinda reminds me of “Heckuva job, Brownie.”) He continued with a litany of excuses for the CDC’s snafu, most of which I could not hear due the muffled acoustics are bound to occur when a person attempts to speak with his nose buried way up in another person’s posterior. But I did catch a little snippet involving the tendencies of tables in Excel spreadsheets (EXCEL SPREADSHEETS!!???) to “truncate” (cut off) data.
   
   As my Klingon friends would say … GA-A-A-A-GGH! I don’t know what is more horrifying: (1) The CDC mailing out the ballots incorrectly; (2) They didn't think to apply the "text wrap" option to all the table cells so parts of the text wouldn't disappear; or (3) They were using MICROSOFT EXCEL to handle the elaborate process of mailing ballots for the upcoming RRROC election to the entire Russian River Redevelopment area! HELLO? Like, Excel is a spreadsheet program, not a database program? No WONDER the CDC gobbles up "administration fees" from our redevelopment funds like Nibbles the Elephant Seal at a surfing convention. What other botched & inefficiently performed tasks are we paying for due to inappropriate & obsolete technologies? Do the folks at CDC also bill us for the 25 hours it takes them to drive from Sonoma to here because their cars all have square wheels? Good gawd.
   
3. Another man (whose name I did not catch) asked Ms. Kane to clarify the role of the RRROC Elections subcommittee & aptly concluded, “My head hurts!”
4. Ms. Kane explained that the subcommittee plays an “advisory role.” It “makes recommendations.”
5. Lee Torr IV of Monte Rio (yes, he ALWAYS introduces himself as “Lee Torr, the Fourth” & I keep wondering what he’s done with the other three) said that as a local real estate magnate – um, actually, he said “property owner” – “I got a LOT of ballots.” He then referred back to a previous discussion about how property owners whose tax records named them as “first name, last name, et al” (et al is not the Israeli airline company, it’s Latin for “& others” meaning that multiple people or business partners own the property) received multiple ballots.
   
   Mr. Torr then asked an extremely important question: “How can you validate ballots when submitted?” (i.e. to make sure that there’s only one vote per property & that owners of multiple properties don’t send in more than one ballot).
6. Ms. Kane replied that there’s a “code on the envelope,” Mr. Torr said, “I looked. There IS none.”
7. Someone else (alas many folks forget to provide their names or do not speak into the microphone) asked another very important question: “How much do ballots cost?” (i.e. the printing, producing, & mailing thereof).
8. “45 cents each for postage,” Ms. Kane. Um ... & what about an itemization of the printing, paper & envelope costs? And how does one explain this expensive & extensive effort in the context of no stamp being provided on the return envelopes?
   
9. And – Oh, Goody! – here comes Lloyd Guccione (who I often adore, even though I adamantly don’t want him to replace Dan Fein on RRROC), who gravely intones: “It would seem that after all these elections, we would have a clue of how much it costs to mail a ballot.” He went on to say that part of the problem with the elections is that they’re intended to represent property owners, business owners, & tenants, & that each group should have access to their own legal counsel. He also pointed out that there has been no outreach to tenants (who won’t receive ballots unless they’ve registered to vote at their current address). There’s a “problem with basic organizational structure.” The tenants’ representatives are not necessarily elected by people who are representative of tenants’ interests, since everyone votes for people in each category. Whew! That’s complicated, I hope I got it all right.
10. Deborah Waller of Guerneville said that there seems to have been a “quality control error,” and inquired, “Is this election in jeopardy?” Which is exactly what’s on my mind, too.
11. Mr. Uniack suggested that from now on, we should have the candidate’s forum BEFORE the ballot goes out.
12. Larry Weinstein of Guerneville said, “I’d like to see a debate with real heart-to-heart talk.” I like that idea. Or, perhaps, some sort of exciting contest like “Dancing with the Stars” or "Monster Truck Rally."
    

Pulling the Plug: Mike Reilly & Board of Supervisors Want Redevelopment Funds Back In The General Fund Coffers?

On to the next agenda item: How should RRROC respond to the recommendation of Mike Reilly & the Board of Supervisors’ ad-hoc committee for ceasing redevelopment operations & putting the money back into the General Fund due to budget short-falls.

Tom Lynch wants to meet with them in order to “defend our redevelopment funds,” because they will "eventually increase our tax base," but really because he's a staunch & caring advocate of redevelopment projects in our area. He then filed a motion for the RRROC Chairman (Dan Fein) to “write a letter” to the Board of Supervisors. (Hmph. I'd rather go to a local park, scoop up some dog poop, broken beer bottles, dirty used needles, & some cigarette butts, put them into a box & send THAT to Mr. Reilly, but Mr. Lynch has much nicer manners than I do. But what the hey, nobody could possibly expect lovely manners from a River Rattina like me).

1. John deSalvio asked if there’s “anyway to hold them to it?” (i.e. do we have legal grounds for objecting to the withdrawal of redevelopment funds?). Ms. Kane replied that they basically have the right to do this, “though it hasn’t been done.” (The Board of Supervisors has never pulled the plug on redevelopment funds for this or other project areas).
2. Mr. Weinstein inquired, “Is the County bankrupt?”
3. Mr. Lynch replied, “No, but it’s bad.
4. Mr. Weinstein expostulated, “How – with all these wineries, tourist development, etcetera – how can this be?” Yeah, I wonder about that too.
   
5. Mr. Guccione stated, “Mr. O’Reilly needs to come here & sit at this table … You NEED to invite Mr. O’Reilly here.” He's definitely right about that.
   
6. Someone (alas, I can’t remember who) explained that there’s a problem with various agencies in the County demanding funding … “it’s melting down.”
7. Mr. Torr advised that “the letter ought to be more sweet than sour.” I initially disagree because I’m so mad about this, but eventually feel obligated to admit that Mr. Torr is totally right about this. After all, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar & as someone wisely told me, “You don’t cross Mike Reilly.” Part of me wants to say, "Why? He's only there for another year, he's a lame duck." Yet, I hold back because another part of me enjoys the luxury of untainted tap water.
   

No Money for Administrative Support

NEXT … Mr. Uniack says that RRROC & the subcommittees “NEED a secretary … someone to take the minutes [of meetings].” He explains that it’s hard to discuss things & take notes at the same time & that the meeting minutes hence lack sufficient detail. He also points out that redevelopment is supposed to be about “local jobs for local people. Why not hire someone local?”

1. Ms. Kane explains that the CDC office is “staffed at capacity” & there are no funds for additional staff. Also, they can’t just hire a local person on a contract basis because hiring procedures, unions, & other factors are involved.
   
2. Mr. Uniack restates that RRROC needs administrative support for subcommittees.
   
3. Ms Kane replies, “My job is to guard the budget. What can we do to work together without sparring?" (Ummm ... perhaps you could occasionally choose to guard the budget in a way that favors us? I really wish we COULD bid CDC's administrative functions out to a company that can actually work efficiently & make appropriate use of modern technology. An awful lot of problems could be avoided this way).
   
4. Ms. Michaels kept croaking, “Six years ... shut it down.” This rather disappointed me. Can't a smart, funny & powerful woman like you figure out something more CONSTRUCTIVE to say?
   
5. On the other hand, this WAS a rather depressing meeting, during which River Rattina made a multitude of flaky, overwrought & inappropriate comments which included: (1) demanding that the folks on RRROC hunt Mike Reilly down while carrying torches & pitch forks (flashlights & butterfly nets would be far more environmentally friendly & humane); & also ranting on about the huge amount she pays in property taxes & even saying how much it is so that all of the folks who've had their properties in their families since the 1800's & are grandfathered in by Proposition 13 would know how much recent homebuyers are paying ... and ... um ... that was probably TMI (too much information).
   

Hmph … like if we just shut down RRROC & the Russian River Redevelopment area projects, the County will give us all the money back? Fat chance. As a property owner who – like other recent homebuyers – pays exorbitant property taxes for a modest home, I really want to see these projects go through. We ALL deserve our fair share of local improvements & services ... but folks who are struggling to pay out the nose are less likely to put up with the lack of improvements & services.

Sigh. On this note, the meeting came to an end. The atmosphere felt rather deflated & even a bit sad. This is too bad, because I believe that the redevelopment process has come a long way since it began. Redeveloping low-income & ecologically delicate areas such as ours is a long & complicated process -- especially when such a large degree of public representation, oversight, & input are encouraged & required. Although it takes longer for us to see results & we run into glitches along the way, I do strongly believe that we're basically on the right track.

Do we want to go back to the days before RRROC, when the County was trying to ram projects through willy-nilly without so much as a by-your-leave? Folks around here were up in arms, which is why RRROC was created in the first place.

On the bright side, a well-informed individual whispered to me that Mike Reilly, et al's mutterings about shutting down County redevelopment projects aren't really directed towards us & the Russian River Redevelopment Area. They're intended for the Sonoma Valley Redevelopment Area, which has exhausted its funds & has requested more. I hope she's right!

Hot & Steamy RRROC Stuff: The Smoking Emails

Below, please find the hot & steamy RRROC "smoking emails" (the supposed "evidence" for Mr. Guccione's complaint against RRROC for alleged Brown Act violations). They're buried on the RRROC Web site, but I'm posting them here for the convenience of anyone who has the desire, fortitude, & impeturbable digestive system required for their perusal.

The cast of characters (as seen in the email headers & body of the emails) are as follows:

• Dan Fein: Chairman of RRROC
• John Uniack: RRROC member & community watch dog/legal eagle
• Boris Sztorch: CDC Redevelopment Manager
• Ken Wikle: RRROC member
• Brown Act: A California Law which requires that the meetings of elected officials be open to the public & that the public be guaranteed the right to speak. Apparently Mr. Guccione believes that the following emails count as a "meeting," although no meeting agenda items were discussed.
• P&P: Policies & Procedures. A legal document which governs how RRROC meetings are to be conducted & who's allowed to do what.
  

These email messages consist of an argument between Mr. Fein & Mr. Uniack. Mr. Fein had sent an email to RRROC & CDC members calling for a special RRROC meeting, in addition to the regular monthly one. Mr. Fein believed this meeting was necessary because several agenda items had been postponed (sometimes repeatedly) due to lack of time ... despite the fact that meetings were often running past midnight! Mr. Uniack protested the calling of this meeting on the grounds that Mr. Fein, in the capacity of Chairman, does not have the authority to call a special meeting.

The special RRROC meeting was held in September & the public was duly notified. I believe this meeting was entirely necessary. Mr. Fein's calling a special meeting -- & the resulting emails -- do not seem at all improper in my eyes. These items deserved their (often long-overdue) time for public discussion. Continuing to unduly postpone discussion of these issues would have been highly unjust & hence may have provoked resentment against RRROC at best & Brown Act complaints at worst.

If we truly care about the values embraced by the Brown Act, then we need to tolerate the necessity of occasional extra (aka "Special") meetings & be willing to either attend these meetings or respect the decisions of those who bother to do so.

So ... gulp down a glass of water, along with the antidepressants, digestive medications, or high-proof alcohol shot of your choice & read on, if you dare.

---

From: Boris Sztorch
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:21 AM
To: Dan Fein
Subject: Email re: Special Meeting

Hi Dan,

See you've read the following email from John Uniack regarding the legality of calling a Special Meeting. What are your thoughts?

>>> JohnnyU 8/6/2007 4:37 PM >>>

Hi Boris,

I got an email Friday informing me of a special RRROC meeting called by the RRROC chair Dan Fein with an agenda decided and guests invited by Chair Dan Fein. The chair position on the RRROC is a meeting facilitator position that was given agenda approval, with the vice chair, by the RRROC to make sure that the agenda for the upcoming meeting was as stated at the end of the last meeting and to approve written agenda item requests.

Please read section 7.4 of the policy and procedures paragraph two which states that requested items will be placed on the agenda of a regular RRROC meeting. The chair does not have authority to call a special meeting for items that he has withheld from the regular agenda, in fact he has no authority to withhold RRROC related items from the regular agenda period. If the RRROC wants the chair to have this kind of power it must be put in the policies and procedures document. Any non-emergency special meeting of the RRROC must be an agenized item on the agenda of a regular RRROC meeting with the time and place decided by a member vote.

thanks
John U

---

From: Dan Fein
To: Boris Sztorch
CC: John Uniak, Ken Wikle
Subject: RE: Email re: Special Meeting
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:40:33 -0700

Boris,

I respectfully disagree with John’s interpretations.

1) The same article of the P&P that John’s email references says that an “Emergency Meeting” can be called with 24 hour notice. There is no other discussion about what constitutes an emergency meeting, when it can be held or for what purpose, or who can call it. Here is what the Brown Act says:

“The Brown Act provides for three different types of meetings. Regular meetings occur at a time and

location generally set by ordinance, resolution, or by-laws. At least 72 hours prior to a regular

meeting, an agenda must be posted which contains a brief general description of each item to be

transacted or discussed at the meeting. Special meetings may be called at any time but notice must be

received at least 24 hours prior to the meeting by all members of the body and by all media outlets that

have requested notice in writing. Emergency meetings, which are extraordinarily rare, may be called

upon one-hour notice to media outlets that have requested notice in writing.”

What our P&P calls an “Emergency Meeting” follows the Brown Act rules about “Special Meetings”, which can be called at any time up to 24 hours in advance of the meeting. In fact, the P&P do not refer to “Emergency Meetings” anywhere other than in item 7.2, however there are several references to “Special Meetings”. This is an internal inconsistency that should be addressed at some point. John’s assertions that: “The chair does not have authority to call a special meeting” and “Any non-emergency special meeting of the RRROC must be an agenized item on the agenda of a regular RRROC meeting with the time and place decided by a member vote” are not stated anywhere in the P&P and are contrary to the character of a special meeting as defined in the Brown Act.

2) The P&P do not state in any way what are the responsibilities and duties of the Chair other than to approve the agenda and to monitor the time of public comment. Lacking definition, it is up to the individual Chairperson to interpret and exercise those duties. I agree with John that one of the responsibilities of the Chair is to act as a facilitator, even though that is not stated in the P&P. Ultimately, the responsibility of the Chair must be to assure that RRROC succeeds at conducting its business and makes the best use of the time that is contributed by its members and by the public who participate. My personal measure of success for a RRROC Chair is how well the committee works as a team and what is accomplished during his/her tenure, and that’s how I’m interpreting my duties.

3) RRROC-related items have not been withheld from the agenda. Several items that have been requested have been postponed either by prioritization by the Chair and Vice-Chair or by the RRROC during meetings in which they were on the agenda. Some items have been postponed several times. Nothing in the P&P requires that agenda items be considered by the RRROC in the order that they are requested.

With respect to the upcoming special meeting, we (Chair and Vice-Chair) hope to address all outstanding RRROC-related items having to do with process and responsibilities of the RRROC. I consider this to be a more efficient use of time and resources than considering these items piecemeal. We have gone to lengths to assure that questions that have been raised by RRROC members and the public can be addressed by people with knowledge and authority to address them, and that all involved will have more than adequate time to prepare. Given the number of items, the complexity of some of the questions and the likely length of discussion, I expect that this will not be the last of the special meetings.

Best regards,

Dan Fein

---

From: John Uniak
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:43 PM
To: Dan Fein, Boris Sztorch
Cc: Kenneth Wikle
Subject: RE: Email re: Special Meeting

Hi, everyone
Since the start of this committee the main responsibility of the chair has been to conduct the meetings. The RRROC authorized the chair and vice chair to approve the agenda not write or delete items from the agenda. The RRROC agenda for its next meeting is set by the RRROC members at the end of each meeting. The chair has never asked for the authority to delete/deter agenda items, to call additional meetings or anything else. This is a democratic committee and the chair is not a dictatorial position. I suggest that the chair read P&P article 4-1&4. and present to the full committee what he wants for their review and approval.
Why was the need for a additional meeting not put on last months agenda? The committee could have discussed its need, format, agenda date, time and advisors if any. The agenda situation has deteriorated to the point where only the items that the chair wants on are included. The other RRROC members and the public do not know if the items that were approved for the next months agenda will appear or not or if they ever will appear on any RRROC agenda. The people whose items were not approved by the chair for placement on an agenda are not notified that their item was not included, nor given any reason why. Some of the current agenda problems must be placed on the CDC who has the responsibility for the preparation of the agenda and should be advising the chair.
My suggestion would be to follow the P&P and Roberts Rules. Anything not covered in these documents should be brought to the committee for approval.
Thanks for your time
John U

---

From: Dan Fein
To: John Uniak, Boris Sztorch
CC: Ken Wikle
Subject: RE: Email re: Special Meeting
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 23:42:00 -0700

Again, with all due respect John, your assertion that “The RRROC agenda for its next meeting is set by the RRROC members at the end of each meeting” is not supported by RRROC P&P. In fact, according to P&P requests for agenda items can be submitted as late as 5:00 on the first Thursday of the month.

The special meeting is necessary to attend to a number of outstanding issues, many of which are items you have requested to be included on our agenda. When we spoke on Saturday, I mentioned several items that will be included in the special meeting agenda. If there is an item that you have requested that I didn’t mention and that you want to be sure is included, please let me or Ken know.

Dan Fein

---

From: John Uniak
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:07 PM
To: Dan Fein; 'Boris Sztorch'
Cc: 'Kenneth Wikle'
Subject: RE: Email re: Special Meeting

Dan your way of thinking is completely foreign to the concept of democracy. You have not been given the authority to do anything except to conduct RRROC meetings, check the agenda of accuracy and approve adding items that meet P&P requirements---approve the agenda---Have you read the Roberts Rules section on chairperson? Where did you see that you can do what you are doing? The P&P/bylaws tell you what you can do as chair. Anything that is not specifically stated in them is not allowed. There have been several instantences during your term as chair that your decisions have not been upheld. This has cost the RRROC time and creditability. It has caused many unnecessary agenda item requests. It has caused more public comment increasing meeting time. It has caused several items to be sent to the grand jury. I am trying to keep you from going beyond the point of no return. Why do do make decisions on your own that the committee would approve if you would just put them on the agenda? Please read the attachment from one of the Roberts Rules books that I have.

JohnnyU

---

From: Dan Fein
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:56 PM
To: 'JohnnyU'; 'Boris Sztorch'
Cc: 'Kenneth Wikle'
Subject: RE: Email re: Special Meeting

John,

Your opinion is duly noted.

If you would like to reword your statement as a decision for the RRROC to consider, please submit it as an agenda request, and I’ll be certain that it is included in the special meeting, time permitting. If time does not permit, we’ll include it in the regular September agenda.

Until a majority of the RRROC tells me otherwise, I will continue to conduct my chairmanship in the way that I deem to be most effective for the benefit of the RRROC and the community.

Dan

---

Redevelopment & RRROC: Some Myths & Facts

Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee (RRROC) & Redevelopment: Some Myths & Facts:

1. RRROC has committed "Brown Act" violations: No, RRROC has been threatened with legal action for allegedly committing Brown Act Violations, which have all been instigated by a single individual (Lloyd Guccione) & these allegations are repeatedly thrown out. The Brown Act is a California Law that requires all deliberations of publicly-elected entities to be transparent & to be conducted in a manner which allows the public to participate in the discussion & be allowed to speak up. Chairperson Dan Fein sent emails to RRROC & CDC members about calling a special meeting to discuss agenda items which had been postponed because the RRROC meetings were running too long. RRROC member John Uniack responded with an email questioning whether the Chairman (Mr. Fein) has the legal authority to call a meeting. A lively argument ensued concerning THIS particular point of procedure, which resulted in the extra RRROC Special Meeting held in September, of which the public & all parties concerned were duly notified. Hence there was no violation of the Brown Act. Many folks (including me) have advocated the creation of an RRROC Web site which can (among many other things to make information like this more readily available to folks who don't have time to dig through PDF files on the CDC/RRROC Web site. But this is an issue of available technology & resources (a Communications Outreach Subcommittee has been created to address this)
   
   I agree with Mr. Guccione, John Uniack, Zelda Michaels, Lenny Weinstein & others that RRROC needs to rigorously follow procedures & conduct itself in a manner that places them beyond reproach. But I also believe that RRROC & CDC members are making a HUGE effort to keep the public informed & to encourage public participation. If there have ever been lapses (I have only lived here for three years & hence don't know everything that happened in RRROC's early years), it seems like they would have more likely occurred due to lack of time, resources & experience, NOT from evil intent.
   
   I do NOT appreciate Mr. Guccione's treating our hardworking RRROC members like Watergate criminals instead of trying to help them facilitate communications & public outreach. A Communications & Outreach subcommittee has been created for this purpose & anyone who lives, owns property, or owns a business in this area can apply for membership in this subcommittee.
   
   Hmph. Mr. Guccione wants to be seen as a community watch dog, but he's behaving more like a community pit bull.
   
   
2. Redevelopment = Overdevelopment: Only if we WANT that, & the majority of us (including the folks serving on RRROC) do NOT. Redevelopment funds are set aside by the County (via the Community Development Commission) to fund a variety of public improvements which the Russian River Redevelopment area (Rio Nido, Guerneville, & Monte Rio) could not otherwise afford. We NEED stuff like parks, public restrooms, clean restrooms, & restoration or removal of crumbling buildings. Nobody is trying to change our downtown areas & nobody is advocating any large, for-profit housing developments. Nor has RRROC recommended funding for the evil & over-priced Monte Rio Sewer (though I do hope we can find a way to provide funds for people to upgrade their septic systems so human & chemical wastes don’t leak into our river & groundwater systems).
   
   We are required to spend 25% of these redevelopment funds on affordable housing & this requirement can be partially met through the rehabilitation of existing dwellings as well as via new construction … if only we could figure out a viable means for doing this. The county currently has a program which would ease requirements for homeowners with “granny units” to make these units “legal” (& who reportedly would not impose penalties if these units are currently being rented) … but alas, we currently have no mechanism to create funding for the conversion of these units. Although the County will be lenient about some requirements like minimum ceiling heights, I assume they will still insist upon modern standards for electrical & septic systems & the like. Potential owner-occupant landlords hence do not have the incentive for converting their potential units. But we could CHANGE that.
   
   
3. RRROC doesn’t get anything done, part 1: Actually, RRROC has played a key role in providing funding to a variety of desirable public improvements which have enjoyed strong community support, including: A grant to KGGV FM, our beloved local radio station; Low interest loans (which don’t require repayment until a property is sold) for raising homes above the flood-line; Rehabilitation of dilapidated buildings which house Russian River Childcare Services, the Rio Nido Fire Station & Post Office, & the Monte Rio Community Center (formerly the Koret Club); local clean ups & removal of abandoned buildings & vehicles; substantial rebates for replacing old wood stoves with modern ones which are safer, more energy-efficient, & more environmentally sound; funding for the creation of two beautiful new river parks in Guerneville; & more items than I can list here.
   
   For now, the most comprehensive list of projects for which RRROC has recommended funding is located on the About RRROC page of Dan Fein's campaign Web site.
   
   
4. RRROC doesn’t get anything done, part 2: They can only “get things done” if YOU submit proposals for project funding. Sometimes, this would require you contact the appropriate local agency or organization & get them to submit your proposal. Agencies & organizations, which you can approach with your ideas include the following: Your local parks & recreation department; your local school, your house of worship, your neighborhood association, your chamber of commerce, or a non-profit organization with whom you are involved. If you’re REALLY committed, you could even start your own organization.
   
   
5. RRROC controls redevelopment funds: Um … yes & no. Technically, the Board of Supervisors controls redevelopment funds. But first, they have to go through RRROC, which was created to prevent the County from spending redevelopment funds willy-nilly. Project funding proposals are presented to RRROC, which deliberates over the proposals, makes suggestions, & votes whether or not to recommend them to the County Development Commission (CDC)f or funding. The CDC then passes this on to the Board of Supervisors, which issues the funds.
   
   RRROC recommends funding for projects based on whether they are appropriate & legally within the scope of redevelopment’s stated mission, & whether these projects will meet the needs of & be embraced by our community. They have often required substantial changes to proposals based on public input. For example, Sonoma Parks & Recreation (for the Guerneville River Park) & Luther Burbank Housing (for the 5^th & Mill Street affordable housing construction) have been required to grant RRROC an extensive role in reviewing the project designs & budgets before receiving their recommendations for funding.
   
   
6. Nobody knows what RRROC is doing: RRROC is making substantial efforts to reach out to the public. They send out a quarterly newsletter to every household; Dan Fein has a regularly occurring broadcast with Milo on KGGV FM; & lots of news & information are available via the County’s RRROC site & Microbulletin Board. Everyone is invited to meetings, which take place on the 3^rd Thursday of each month at 7pm & which alternate between the Guerneville Veterans Hall & Monte Rio Community Center. Members of the public can also apply to serve on the various subcommittees. Audio broadcasts of RRROC meetings are available via the Guerneville Library & Microbulletinboard.com. You can also contact Vicky Sacksteader of the CDC at 565.7500 & ask her to mail you meeting materials on a monthly basis.
   
   
7. The Affordable Housing Project at 5^th & Mill will be hideous & poorly managed: RRROC recently recommended funding to Luther Burbank Housing to acquire land for this project after many go-arounds & much public debate. Burbank has an excellent reputation for working with communities to design high-quality, attractive, & well-managed affordable housing developments. & RRROC has managed to obtain substantial control over the design & planning of the project. I’ll be sad to see Noonan’s Garage gone. Otherwise, the main things we’ll be losing are some dilapidated vacant lots & substandard multi-unit housing.
   
   I would like to see adequate temporary housing provided for current tenants who may be displaced, & for them to be placed first on the list of applications for apartments in this complex. These mechanics are still being hashed out. Though I MUST admit that I will NOT be sorry if that lady with the poorly-built fence & herd of aggressive, renegade, cat-eating pit bulls is forced to leave!
   
   The other proposed affordable housing project (at the end of Laughlin Rd.) is likely to be a “sweat equity” development partnership with the folks at Habitat for Humanity, which would enable low & middle income local residents to realize their otherwise impossible dream of becoming home-owners.

So, basically, what happens with our redevelopment funds is almost entirely up to US.

RRROC Elections: Why Are These People Smiling?

Lloyd Guccione -- who is running for Dan Fein's seat on the Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee (RRROC) -- has run a huge quarter-page advertisement in this month's Russian River Monthly, which asks: "Why are these people smiling?"

The ad shows grinning photos of his supporters alongside the obligatory supportive quotes, & of course the answer to the above query is: "Two words. Lloyd Guccione."

To which MY visceral response is: Um ... I cannot even possibly fathom why "these" people -- or ANY people -- would be smiling about Mr. Guccione's campaign.

Mr. Guccione is a highly articulate, intelligent, logical, & thoughtful man who speaks up at RRROC meetings with long, majestic, poetic cadences with the most amazingly lovely, resonant baritone. Alas, the political views & intentions which manifest themselves through the instrument of that sonorous voice do not elicit smiles from me.

This gentleman has a high degree of intelligence, intensity, & integrity, & is highly regarded by some as a community watch-dog. His supporter, Lenny Weinstein, is even quoted in the ad as saying "Lloyd does a lot of homework to make sure that the public is well protected. Every community needs a muckracker."

But we already HAVE a devoted & vigilant watch dog in the person of John Uniack (currently serving on RRROC) -- who diligently crunches numbers & forcefully advocates adherence to proper & legal procedures while still managing to work effectively with members of RRROC & the community at large in a professional, courteous, & constructive manner. Unlike Mr. Guccione, Mr. Uniack often stands FOR things as well as AGAINST them.

My main problem with Mr. Guccione is that he does not behave in a constructive, courteous, or helpful manner. He repeatedly criticizes RRROC & points out problems without proposing any constructive solutions. He insults the personal integrity of RRROC members & launches frivolous legal actions instead of devoting his formidable intellectual energies & resources to helping the RRROC become more transparent. We're a small community & we NEED to be civil & kind towards one another. If Mr. Guccione cares so danged much, he should serve on a subcommittee or submit a proposal for project funding (um ... though I don't know WHAT, exactly such a project might be ... um ... an oversight committee for the Russian River Redevelopment Oversight committee?).

The formidable complexity of Mr. Guccione's mind prevents me from discerning what he actually wants & supports. But I have managed to form a pretty good idea of what he does NOT want or support. As far as I can tell, Mr. Guccione wants NO redevelopment funds to be spent on ANY projects whatsoever. Mr. Guccione takes NIMBY (an acronym for "not in my back yard") to a whole new level: BANANAs (which stands for "BUILD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, ANYWHERE, NEAR ANYTHING").

He talks an awful lot about spending our redevelopment tax dollars wisely, yet he also requires huge amounts of these tax dollars to be spent upon defending RRROC against lawsuits instigated by ... guess who? ... Mr. Guccione. Who has repeatedly taken legal action against RRROC for supposed petty infractions against various arcane procedural requirements, which Mr. Guccione attributes to evil & profiteering motives on the part of RRROC members. These allegations are repeatedly rejected by the courts, yet he persists in making them.

I agree that RRROC & the CDC need to improve their communications & public outreach (though they have taken many steps in the right direction) & have repeatedly urged them to do so in this blog & in person at the RRROC meetings. But I don't feel that these lapses result from sinister motives. The fact is: RRROC members do not get paid, have a lot of redevelopment stuff on their plates (in addition to their "real" lives), & they're doing the best they can. County Development Commission (CDC) officials are also overworked & underpaid & they have to stay at RRROC meetings until past midnight, too. I'm sure their spouses & children love that.

So ... when we vote for our RRROC representatives, do you want to vote for Dan Fein, Catherine Young, George Zastrow, & other colleagues whose seats are up for grabs & who've actually managed to get some stuff done? Or do you want to vote for Mr. Fein's opponent, Lloyd Guccione, who has consistently & forcefully opposed almost every single public improvement which has been proposed for funding over the past few years & who has repeatedly WASTED the LOCAL TAX DOLLARS he is so desirous of managing wisely by launching unjustified lawsuits which repeatedly bite the hand that's trying to feed us & which has often proven more than willing to allow us to define the terms upon which we are fed?

Like most of my fellow river rats & rattinas, I want to preserve the qualities we all love about this area, including our abundant natural beauty & more laid-back way of life. I don't want our downtowns to become chi chi Theissenvilles, or to promote huge housing developments which will turn us into a sprawling suburb of Santa Rosa. But nobody is proposing any projects that could even remotely lead to these undesirable outcomes.

I love our cool, green, serpentine river & our majestic redwoods, but I also like things like parks, roads, functional water pipes, affordable loans & grants for raising people's homes above the floodline, removal of abandoned vehicles & other trash, rehabilitation for the buildings which house important local institutions like the Koret Club & River Child Care Services, & other things that we need & cannot afford without redevelopment funds.

Once again, I am obliged to disclose the fact that Dan Fein hired me to create his campaign Web site. But I wouldn't have done so if I hadn't already decided to support him.

RRROC Elections: & The Vote-Worthy Incumbents Are ...

In my previous posting, I encouraged my readers (both of them) to vote for the incumbents in the upcoming RRROC election on December 11th, 2007 & explained why. These folks are committed, caring, & work well together. These currently serving RRROC members who wish to retain their seats (heaven knows why -- it's an awfully thankless & unpaid job) are:

• Business Owners/Operators: Lynn Crescione & George Zastrow
  
• Residential Property Owners: Dan Fein
• Residential Tenants: Catherine Young

Additional RRROC members still serving out their terms (& who are hence not running for re-election) are: Ken Wikel (business owners); Tom Lynch (who is running for Mike Reilly's post as County Supervisor) & John Uniack (residential property owners); & John DeSalvio & Sheila Peterson (residential tenants).

These folks have worked awfully well together to pass through a variety of worthy projects which have drawn wide support from the community -- including the following:

• Funding for our beloved community radio station, KGGV FM;
• Renovations to the Koret Club (now called the Monte Rio Community Center) & the River Child Care Services building;
• Creation of two attractive parks alongside the Russian River in Guerneville;
• Construction of our first public restroom at the Guerneville River Park;
• Elimination of "urban blight" (um, don't they mean RURAL blight?) via the Spring Clean-Up, & removal of abandoned vehicles & unsafe abandoned buildings;

The currently-serving members have fought for -- & received -- unprecendented levels of provision for public input in the design & implementation of these projects. I'm sure the challengers are equally caring & passionate & have worthy qualifications, but things are balanced & going well & why rock the boat at this point?

Current RRROC Chair, Dan Fein, & Catherine Young particularly stand out in my mind as people who have supported redevelopment project proposals while also insisting upon -- & receiving -- provisions for public outreach & local control. I am also highly impressed with John Uniack (whose seat is not up for grabs this year), for his rigorous insistence upon the exercise of due diligence concerning the legal & financial aspects of redevelopment. I also adore Tom Lynch & Ken Wikle, who passionately advocate for public restrooms, affordable housing, & other much-needed community infrastructure.

Once again, I feel ethically obliged to publicly express my support for Dan Fein, who wishes to serve on RRROC for another term. Current legal provisions prohibit him from acting as Chair again. But that's okay. Mr. Fein is well connected, acts well as a team player, & does not exhibit any major attachment to his chairperson-ship.

02.15.07 RRROC Meeting: The Whole Enchilada

Warning: This really IS the "Whole Enchilada." It runs for almost 20 pages & includes all the juicy details. For a shorter re-cap of the recent RRROC meeting, read my Brief Summary.

I must confess that RRROC (Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee) meetings are NOT for wimps ... and I am definitely a wimp! The meeting -- held at the Koret Club in Monte Rio on February 15th, 2007 -- commenced at 7:00 pm, ramped up quickly, & was barely petering out (with several agenda items remaining for discussion), when I finally gave up the ghost & guiltily creeped out at 10:30 pm.

I did not arrive until 7:30 pm & knew that I was in for an awfully long -- albeit interesting & contentious -- slog from the minute I parked, opened my car door & set my foot down upon the pavement of the parking lot. Lloyd Guccione -- who happened to be catching a breath of fresh air outside at the time of my arrival -- immediately looked me straight in the eye & declared, "You're late." (NOTE: with 20-20 hindsight, I now realize that I must have JUST missed his request for the removal of Dan Fein as RRROC Chair).

Please note that I missed parts of the meeting & am grateful to the various folks who so kindly filled me in.

1. Call to Order: The meeting officially begins
2. Roll Call: Make sure all RRROC members, county representatives, presenters, etc. are present &/or accounted for.
   
3. RRROC Member Business
   
   A. Election of Officers: Here's how it works. We vote for people to represent us on the RRROC, which was created to ensure that our communities have a say in how the Sonoma County Development Commission (CDC) allocates redevelopment funds for our li'l part of the Russian River. The elected RRROC members then elect a Chair & Vice-Chair amongst themselves each year at a public meeting.
   
   Now that I've given the required background information, I need to lament:
   
   Awww, MAN! I missed all the FUN! According to a couple of my suitably punctual acquaintances, Lloyd Guccione is still gunning for Dan Fein's removal from the RRROC as chairman! And he's not the only one. Last fall, Mr. Guccione circulated a petition, got 28 people to sign it, and requested that the RRROC add the removal of Mr. Fein as an item on the meeting agenda. Naturally, this motion didn't get very far, since Mr. Fein's role as chairman gives him control of the meeting agenda, & of course he will not endorse something that could involve his removal from power. Mr. Fein immediately quashed Mr. Guccione's request & refused to even discuss the petition.
   
   John Uniack (elected RRROC member) argued that the election of officers (which is to be voted on this evening) should be postponed until the petition is added to the agenda & discussed, because 28 constituents had signed the petition & these people have the right to have their views duly considered.
   
   A discussion followed about who legally has the right to add items to the meeting agenda, with Mr. Uniack stating that any RRROC member can approve items for the meeting agenda, & CDC Executive Director Kathleen Kane backing Mr. Fein's point of view, insisting that only the chair (& maybe the vice-chair) can add items.
   
   The election then proceeded, despite Mr. Uniack's objections. Mr. Fein was re-elected as chair by 7-1 (Mr. Uniack voted against him & Mr. Fein abstained from voting for himself) & the affable RRROC Vice Chair, Ken Wikle, was unanimously re-elected as vice chair.
   
   So why does Mr. Guccione hover menacingly over Mr. Fein's chairmanship like the proverbial Sword of Damocles ("Uneasy is he who sits upon the throne.") It all goes back to two years ago when Mr. Guccione filed a complaint against Mr. Fein for violations of the Brown Act -- a State law which requires requires elected officials to allow the public to speak at meetings. At that time, Mr. Guccione was arguing that the RRROC committees had been established illegally, because citizens had not been given the opportunity to air their views during the process of creating these committees.
   
   Personally, I like Mr. Fein, believe that he works effectively towards what he sincerely believes is best for our community, & feel that his communication skills, ability to work smoothly with County folks, & general savvy serve us well in many ways as RRROC Chair. But I also feel that Mr. Fein could greatly improve his reputation & what former alterno-hipster-city-slickers like me refer to as "street cred" (credibility) in this community by magnanimously allowing this item to appear on the agenda. Does he really think Mr. Guccione -- who embodies the ferocity & tenacity of a highly articulate pit bull -- will slink away with his tail between his legs & bark no more?
   
   Civics 101 exercise: What do YOU think about all of this? Should we leave the addition & deletion of RRROC agenda items to the discretion of the Chairperson in hopes that he or she is capable of weighing all proposals fairly, objectively & on their own merits in order to allow greater efficiency & faster response over the course of the redevelopment process? Or should we empower wider numbers of citizens to add or remove topics from the meeting agendas, thereby adding more potential hurdles to our already glacial pace of accomplishments? If we choose to empower more individuals, where do we draw the line? Can a single RRROC member add or remove an item from the meeting agenda, or do we require a majority (51%-49%) or a super-majority (75%-25%) from RRROC members? Can non-RRROC member citizens have items added to or removed from the agenda? If so, how many signatures would be required?
   
   Perhaps Chairman Fein keeps stonewalling because he assumes his relative youth will enable him to simply outlive Mr. Guccione. That would be highly unwise. Mr. Guccione strikes me as exactly the sort of determined fellow who will REFUSE TO DIE until Mr. Fein ... or his successors ... add his petition to the meeting agenda.
   
   Unfortunately for my readers, I couldn't resist exploring the possibility of Mr. Guccione refusing to give up -- even after death -- in my cheesy & recently posted science fiction short story, Head of Lloyd, which takes place at an RRROC meeting 200 years from now.
   
   
4. Minutes: Approval/validation of the minutes taken from the last meeting on January 18, 2007 at the Guerneville Veteran's Hall. During each meeting, they review the minutes from the previous meeting & then vote to approve them. The Meeting Minutes then become "official."
   
   Dang, they didn't record my litany of complaints about the vile & loathsome porta-potty in Drake Park verbatim. Actually, the CDC doesn't even bother to summarize what people say during the Public Comments periods at all, They just list our names so Santa Claus over at the Permit & Resources Department (PRMD) will know who's been naughty when we need to obtain permits for home repairs. Otherwise, it's like nobody said anything at all.
   
   I feel that the CDC really should include public comments in the Meeting Minutes. It's important for citizens who can't attend meetings to know what people are saying. Yeah, yeah, I know we can go to the library & listen to "recordings" of all of the RRROC meetings (recorded on what? An old, rusty, reel-to-reel-tape sequestered in a dark, dank, dripping, cobweb-filled cell in the basement?) .... but, really, who's going to do that?
   
   
5. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Matters:
   
   A. 95.1 KGGV FM update from Larry Lane: Mr. Lane, from Rio Nido, provided an update on the status of KGGV, our community radio station. This strikes me as peculiar, because although Mr. Lane played an instrumental role in launching KGGV, his name does not appear on the list of radio station staff. The upshot is that Mr. Fein will be giving radio interviews on Milo's current events call-in show, Touch (5-6pm weeknights), every other Thursday evening. Oooh, such exciting news!
   
   Our intrepid & formidable Zelda Michaels from Monte Rio (I absolutely adore her, & if you find RRROC meetings boring, then you need to sit within hearing distance of her ascerbically witty commentary, which she mutters utter her breath in a perpetual stream of consciousness style which hearks back to Ancient Greece when commoners flocked to decipher the inutterable pearls of wisdom uttered by the Oracle of Delphi) inquired as to whether Mr. Fein would be representing himself as Dan Fein, the individual, or as Dan Fein the chair of the RRROC, to which Mr. Fein replied that he would be representing the RRROC in the capacity of chairman. Ms. Michaels then demanded to know when the discussion & vote required to authorize Mr. Fein to represent RRROC on the radio had occurred. A chastened Mr. Fein then backed down & said he was representing himself as Dan Fein, the individual.
   
   B. Rich Carmichael inquires about the Guild's management of funds for the Niche Marketing campaign: Mr. Carmichael, from Rio Nido, stated that he strongly feels that the Guild is mismanaging the funds allocated for the Niche Marketing Campaign (targeted to the gay/lesbian/bi/transexual -- or GLBT -- community) & that the Guild has not been doing what they're supposed to do. As some of you may recall, the RRROC awarded the Guild funds for promoting tourism amongst the GLBT community, including a $125,000 grant for advertising in publications that target these markets.
   
   Armed to the teeth with Guild-sponsored brochures as examples, Mr. Carmichael made the following points: (1) Several major gay venues have received no marketing from the Guild; (2) The Guild promised to develop events during the off-season to promote year-round tourism, but has not done so; and (3) The Guild was supposed to partner with EcoRing (an organization created to develop & promote eco-tourism) & has not done so.
   
   This is the third occasion on which Mr. Carmichael has requested that the RRROC to look into how the Guild money is being spent. Mr. Carmichael has a long history of community activism & ran for an RRROC seat in a recent election, but lost to Sheila Peterson ... this time.
   
   Whether or not we support the original decision to allocate funds for promoting "niche" (i.e. GLBT) tourism, we should do our best to ensure that these funds are being used appropriately.
   
   I also want to know what on earth it IS about Rio Nido that turns folks like Mr. Carmichael, Mr. Uniack & me into such a passel of danged, trouble-making malcontents? Must have something to do with those looming redwood trees. I'm convinced that J.R.R. Tolkein had them in mind when he created the Lord of the Ring trilogy's Fangorn Forest, which was densely populated by immenselly tall & mighty trees of ancient provenance who proved slow to arouse from their long slumber, but devastatingly powerful (& annoyingly loquacious) once they awoke to find their sanctuary threatened.
   
   C. Deborah Waller comments on the jam-packed meeting agenda: Ms. Waller, from Guerneville, brought up the (very apt) point that the agenda for this meeting has so many items that if the RRROC discusses all of them, everyone would have to stay until 1:00 AM. She suggested that the RRROC develop a procedure that enables subcommittees to review items prior to RRROC meetings so decisions can be arrived at more quickly, and/or that they limit the number of items on the agenda.
   
   Mr. Fein said he had "forgotten" to announce that he had already decided to remove some items from the agenda. Ms. Waller replied that she feels that it's important for meeting agendas to reflect what is actually going to be discussed since some of us only have limited time to attend & want to plan accordingly.
   
   Mr. Fein did wind up striking a few items from the agenda, since he -- along with just about everyone else -- agreed with Ms. Waller's assessment of the situation & nobody wanted to stay at the Koret Club until 1:00 AM (unless someone delivers wine, beer & a late buffet dinner -- alas, this sumptuous feast was not forthcoming).
   
   Alas, he has not addressed the fact that these items ... & a multitude of other topics ... will clamor for attention on the list of RRROC meeting agenda items & there simply is not enough time to address them all adequately in a once-per-month meeting that's supposed to run from 7pm-9:30pm.
   
   In my unqualified & ill-informed opinion, I believe that we either need to (1) have TWO meetings per month; or (2) create a mechanism for more ongoing public discussion & input (naturally, I favor a Web site for this) & then shunt many of these matters over to the appropriate subcommittees. The Community Visioning events worked really well for letting people have their say, because they were held at various locations & times of day. Many of us cannot attend weekday evening meetings because of work and/or care giving responsibilities.
   
   
   C. Mr. Guccione revisits his petition: ... And most people ignore him. I have not lived here for very long & hence am unqualified to take sides in this debate. But I do feel that the Brown Act clearly requires the RRROC to add Mr. Guccione's petition to the meeting agenda so it can be publicly & officially discussed. Many folks dismiss Mr. Guccione as a "crank". He is, indeed, quite "cranky". But, in my opinion, he is NOT a "crank". Mr. Guccione comes across to me as intelligent, articulate, knowledgable about the history of our area, well-informed in matters concerning redevelopment legalities, & -- most of all -- extremely PERSISTENT. Mr. Guccione is also quite the orator.
   
   I use the word "orator" in the old-fashioned sense. Although public speaking skills (the ability to persuasively & extemporaneously express one's point of view in rolling, booming cadences from a crudely constructed podium without the benefits of a modern microphone) have rarely been held in esteem these days (outside of small-to-middle-sized Baptist congregations) since the bygone days of the Roman Republic & the Lincoln-Douglass debates, these abilities still do have their effects. Mr. Guccione is an awfully powerful speaker. Enemies who dismiss Mr. Guccione lightly do so at their peril.
   
   D. Mr. Fein agrees with Ms. Waller & removes items from the evening's agenda, as follows: Role of Infrastructure Subcommittee; forming a new Youth Outreach Subcommittee; and Web site enhancements (adding more information & features to the Russian River Development Project Area Web site).
   
   
   
6. Information sharing: Alas, I missed this part & nobody seems to remember what -- if anything -- was discussed. I think this must be the part of the meeting where everyone succumbs to the gleaming pendulum swinging slowly back & forth while a soothing voice intones:
   
   "You are getting sleepy ... very sleepy ... the proposed sewer plant will be a wonderful thing for the town of Monte Rio ... you strongly support the new sewer ... the river-front portion of Sheridan Ranch is just a crappy stretch of blackberry bushes & weeds any way ... and who needs all those slimy, wiggly steel head fish thingies? ... the RRROC should fund a grant ..."
   
   But seriously, If you remember anything, please leave a comment via the link at the bottom of this post.
   
   
7. Correspondence:
   
   A. 01.29.07 letter to Boris Sztorch (Redevelopment Manager) from Margaret Kennett (President of the Russian River Chamber of Commerce): The Chamber withdraws from their application for RRROC funds towards sidewalk repair (including obstructive tree roots which buckle the concrete) in the town of Guerneville for legal reasons (their legal counsel has advised them against taking on this project) & hopes that the County can find another organization to request RRROC funding for these projects. The RRROC & others in the community have been looking for an organization that is willing to apply for a grant to make these repairs. Alas, the logistics & potential legal issues are complex & difficult to overcome.
   
   So, how WILL we get these sidewalks & tree-root upheavals repaired? As an unincorporated bunch of communities, we HAVE no organization with the resources (including legal liability insurance) required for this task. Thank you, Ms. Kennett & the Chamber of Commerce for taking this project into consideration.
   
   B. 01.23.07 email from Mr. Sztorch to RRROC: The email provided the names of people who support the Niche (GLBT) Marketing proposal. The members of the Guild Steering Committee are: Lynette McLean (Highlands Resort); Scott Mitchell (Clark Wolf Media/Russian River Food & Wine Festival); Jerry Hammond (Herth Real Estate); & Verna Preaseau (The Woods Resort). The people who presented the proposal at the 04.20.2006 RRROC meeting were: Bob Young (Coffee Bazaar); Mr. Hammond; Ms. McLean; & Scott Mandell (Russian River Resort). People who spoke up in favor of the Niche Marketing program during Public Comments part of the meeting included: Dave Griffith (former Chamber board member & treasurer); Toni Tacoma (former Chamber president); Dawn Bell (Chamber executive director); Wayne Skala (Wayne Skala Antiques & Gifts); Karen O' Brien (West Sonoma Inn); & Nancy Norstad (Flaunt Magazine). As I mentioned before, the Niche Marketing project obtained grants from RRROC to buy ads in publications that target the gay, lesbian, bisexual & transexual communities (oops, I hope my spelling out the GLBT acronym doesn't make your net-nanny software banish my blog from your Web browser).
   
   B. 02.15.07 email from Jim Fox to the RRROC: Mr. Fox, recently relocated resident of Guerneville, writes to enthusiastically support funding for the River Keeper Park (more on that later).
   
   C. 02/15/07 email from Johanna Lynch to the RRROC: Ms. Lynch, Editor of the Russian River Times writes to support Don McEnhill & the River Keeper Park project.
   
   
8. Monthly Reports: Review of the Monthly Funds Available Report & Project Status Report with Boris Sztorch, CDC Redevelopment Manager. These reports itemize the redevelopment funds that are still available & provide a list of projects which are in process, scheduled to move forward in the near future, & up for discussion. Mr. Sztorch provided a brief synopsis of RRROC recommended projects that have been approved by the Community Development Commission (CDC), including:
   
   * Monte Rio Recreation & Park District's Koret Club Rehabilitation: Their request for funds will be voted upon this evening. The folks from Monte Rio Parks & Recreation (MRRPD) will deliver a presentation & answer questions.
   * Vehicle Abatement Program: Removal of abandoned vehicles throughout redevelopment area -- invoices for 2006 have been paid, 2007 program is in planning stages;
   * Norgaard/Kelso Building Removal: Permits & Resources Management Department -- PRMD -- wants input. Property owner needs to provide RRROC with additional information before receiving $37K redevelopment loan;
   * Design Guidelines Subcommittee: Will complete draft document in March 2007, and then the RRM Design Group (consultants for community planning, engineering, architecture, etc.) will create the final draft document for review by CDC & RRROC;
   * EcoRing: Funding for activities -- including "Eco-Adventures, EcoEducator, Marketing & Program support" will continue as agreed upon. EcoRing was created in August, 2006 to develop & promote eco-tourism.
   * Woodstove Program: They are considering a recommendation to use remaining $14,660 to continue program in 2007.
   * Guerneville River Park: They are still considering Regional Parks' request for $110,000) to finish Phase I.
   * Riverkeeper Property Rehabilitation: Don McEnhill will make a presentation to provide update on Phase 1 & to request funding for Phase 2 of new park.
   * Niche Marketing Grant: Continuing as planned.
   * Strategic Plan: The Strategic Planning Committee has met with PSA, Inc. (some consulting firm whose Web site does not appear on Google) to work on the first draft Plan Framework & Project Evaluation Criteria. The next public sessions for developing the strategic plan are scheduled for late March.
   * Russian River Recreation & Park District (RRRPD) Tennis Courts: The grant agreement is signed & this project is scheduled to proceed.
   * De Monchy Building Removal: The contractor will submit requested information to comply with payment procedures;
   * Monte Rio Fire District Feasibility Study: The grant agreement is signed & the project can move forward.
   
   Zelda Michaels from Monte Rio asked if they've given Frederick Norgaard a deadline for the information he promised to provide two weeks ago? The RRROC approved redevelopment loan of $37,000 to Mr. Norgard so he can remove the eyesore on 9885 Main Street in Monte Rio on 06.13.2006. During the last meeting, there was a discussion about demolishing the De Monchy & Norgaard buildings -- hazardous waste disposal (asbestos floor tile) & prevailing wages in particular.
   
   Ms. Kane replied that they haven't set a deadline for the information, but they will not release the $37K until the information is received. Ms. Michaels sharply retorted that "I don't trust him [Mr. Norgaard]." She pointed out that he could simply submit a $37K bill & write it off on his taxes if the county doesn't pay.
   
   Mr. Uniack went over the financial part of the reports (ooooowwwww, my head hurts!), asked how the reports are added up & proceeded to pick everything apart, line-item by line-item. An example: "Legal issues? For WHAT?"
   
   He also pointed out the expenses paid for meetings with organizations bidding for projects & should be paid for by the organization that requests the meeting. Things finally got ironed out & I'm glad we have Mr. Uniack to go over all the numbers & details with a fine-toothed comb on our behalf, since most of us don't have the talent or stamina for this sort of thing. Alas, it does get rather tedious.
   
   
9. Subcommittee Reports
   
   B. Housing Subcommittee with Ken Wikle: The mission of Mr. Wikle's subcommittee is to explore options for the creation of affordable housing & to make recommendations for RRROC funding accordingly. Representatives of Burbank Housing & the local chapter of Habitat for Humanity (highly-regarded nonprofit organizations which have built successful affordable housing developments in Santa Rosa, Forestville & other parts of Sonoma County) addressed their last subcommittee meeting. They're definitely interested in working with us & things are slowly moving forward -- they're beginning to inquire about land acquisition. Although things are only in the early stages, Mr. Wikle feels positive about this meeting. Let's Keep our fingers crossed!
   
   C. Election Subcommittee with John Uniack: Mr. Uniack requested the following as an agenda item for the next meeting: RRROC needs to approve all peripheral information (fliers, etc) before they are distributed.
   
   "What do I have to do to get Committee Meeting Minutes included in an RRROC meeting packet?" Mr. Uniack exclaimed impatiently. (um ... leave a Bob-n-Boy cheeseburger, chocolate milkshake & curly fries in a discreet paper bag hidden beneath a designated bit of shrubbery in front of the Koret Club precisely 30 minutes beforethe meeting, perhaps?) Ms. Kane pointed out that the committees should make procedures for this, & that she would like to post them on the Web site. Mr. Fein recommended that the committees submit proposals for establishing procedures for adding items to the agenda. Urghphlth. My tang got toungled from the mere act of repeating this.
   
   D. Strategic Planning Subcommittee with Dan Fein: The Strategic Planning Subcommittee has been charged with developing a document that states the visions, goals & values of our community & makes redevelopment recommendations accordingly. A series of well-attended "Public Visioning Events" were held throughout the month of October, 2006 at various times & locations along the Russian River with facilitators who led the discussions & gathered input from a broad range of people who live, work & do business along the shores of the Russian River Redevelopment Zone.
   
   For more information, please visit the Russian River: Our Vision, Our Future Web page. They provide a well-written document on what people said during these events, titled "Visioning Event Summary Report." But first you need to make sure that you have the Adobe Acrobat Reader (a free & easily-installed Web browser plug-in available from downloadAdobe.net) .
   
   As mentioned in Mr. Sztorch's report, the Strategic Planning Committee has met with PSA, Inc. (a consulting firm -- Alas, I cannot provide you with a link to their Web site because my Web searches have proven unsuccessful) to work on the first draft Plan Framework & Project Evaluation Criteria. The next public sessions for developing the strategic plan are scheduled for late March.
   
   For those of you who missed last season's fun, there will be a new series of visioning events to be kicked off by a public meeting on March 22nd at Vice President Cheney's undisclosed location (just kidding ... RRROC is still in the process of determining a location & will send all of us postcards with more specific information via snail mail soon. )
   
   Can't Receive or Haven't Received Community Information, Updates & Announcements?: Do you live here? If so, you are an important part of our community & we need to hear from you, regardless of whether you live here "officially" or not. If you're camping, couch-surfing, or find yourself in between homes, but want to stay in this area, you may be able to get a post-office box, voice mail box & other help & information towards settling in & finding work & community resources through West County Community Services in downtown Guerneville at 707.869.0654. If you're here & plan to remain here, please stand up & be counted so we can help & set up services for you & your children.
   
   E. Restrooms Subcommittee with John De Salvio: Mr. De Salvio's subcommittee is responsible for finding a location for constructing a public restroom on the Western part of downtown Guerneville. This is proving to be surprisingly difficult. (Public restrooms ... the last frontier ... McCoy! The tourists need a bathroom! ... I'm a doctor, dammit! Not a magician!) Alas, the parking lot at Safeway is a no-go. Apparently, the folks in the Corporate Office feel that giving up part of their property would set an undesirable precedent. Cal Trans (the State Transportation agency) owns the property on the other two potential sites, & Mr. De Salvio's committee is still waiting for an answer from them.
   
   G. Communications Ad-hoc Subcommittee with Dan Fein: This committee has been created for a short-term duration to determine the needs for communications, community outreach & the creation of an independent RRROC Web site to provide all information about redevelopment activities in a single, well-organized & accessible location. The County currently makes various documents (the strategic plan, meeting minutes, etc.) available through its Web site, but some people (including me) feel that everything's scattered & hard to access.
   
   Towards this end, Mr. Fein's committee met with the County representatives to discuss the Web site. Mr. Fein recommends that we consider how can we improve the information on the existing CDC & RRROC Web pages & have discussions on what what we would want from a community site. Some people feel that the County-sponsored sites (CDC, RRROC, etc.) are perfectly adequate, but need to be better organized. Others feel that RRROC needs its own Web site.
   
   I -- River Rattina -- need to disqualify myself from this discussion because I definitely have a vested interest. I used to manage the design & development of Web sites as an information architect for various evil & not-so-evil high-tech companies & corporations. I strongly believe that we should have an RRROC Web site with complete written transcripts of RRROC, committee, subcommittee & ad-hoc subcommittee meetings; along with audio & video segments organized by topic; archives of documents from previous meetings; moderated online community discussion forums which facilitate the exchange of information; video Web-casts of meetings with incoming telephone lines & text messaging centers which would enable folks who cannot physically attend meetings to do so virtually, etc. Many people (some of whom are involved with the RRROC, some of whom are not) have suggested that I submit a proposal to the RRROC to obtain funding for creating a Web site that would do all of these wonderful things. And I DO plan to do so just for the heck of it. But I would rather find a group of committed, like-minded individuals who are willing to volunteer to take this thing on by the boot-straps & forgo RRROC funding so we can get the site up-and-running without having to bow & snivel & wait & wait & wait before the CDC & RRROC everytime we need more money.
   
   
10. Old Business: Discussion of ongoing topics & projects which have already been introduced and/or approved.
    
    A. Monte Rio Community Center (Koret Club) Renovation: The Monte Rio Recreation & Parks District (MRRPD) & the Sonoma County Community Development Commission (CDC) received partial redevelopment grant funding ($240K) for renovating the Koret Club in downtown Monte Rio. The Koret Club currently functions as a local community center for Monte Rio. MRRPD & CDC want to take things up a notch & transform the Koret Club into a first-class (or at least second-class?) facility which can better serve the community, while attracting conferences & other functions which would produce revenue & subsidize community functions.
    
    The MRRPD worked awfully danged hard to create a vivid, thorough, well-researched & beautiful presentation, which showed what the new Community Center will look like; how it will continue to serve the community while attracting revenue from groups, tourists, etc.; how they intend to attract & profit from their potential market (they plan to increase usage by 2/3rds); where their funding is coming from (State Parks); & how the additional sought-after RRROC funding ($546,114) will be used to fill in the gaps.
    
    Representatives from MRRPD set up a table on the lower stage (between the audience & the RRROC & CDC people) in order to make their presentation & answer questions from RRROC & the public. Alas, I do not recall the names of all the MRRPD folks who assembled themselves before us. The presenters who have stuck in my memory as the most responsive, dynamic & articulate included Suzanne Schaffert, MRRPD Board Chair; & Brian Grant -- one of the architects working on the project.
    
    During the Public Comments session, Mr. Guccione totally ripped into them. He pointed to the Bingo Board on one wall of the meeting room & the architectural drawings of the new community center on the opposite wall; contrasted the values, aesthetics & views represented by each (presumably low-brow vs. high-brow) ; & demanded, "What community does this represent?!" He went on to say how this project will only benefit a few resort owners.
    
    To me, this seemed a bit unfair & over the top. Mr. Guccione clearly cares about this community & "keeping it real" (as my erstwhile homies back in my former 'hood would say). But I believe that the proposed plans are well-designed & that a nice conference center & gathering place would help revitalize the lovely little town of Monte Rio. The architects & folks from the MRRPD seem to have worked really hard to gather community input for designing a facility that will serve the community while also paying for itself & creating a center of gravity for tourism. Also, we must not forget that providing services & facilities for tourists creates more income & hence more public services (via a higher tax base) for us river rats & rattinas.
    
    At first glance, it seems awfully hard to strike a balance between what's good for us local yokels & what attracts tourists. But really, it shouldn't be so terrbly hard. We all want beautiful, gorgeous natural spaces to look at; clean places to swim; good food; good wine &/or beer; & good wholesom fun.
    
    Mr. Grant was fuming, but managed to calmly & collectedly state, as he breathed deeply through his flared nostrils:
    
    "I take significant exception to Lloyd Guccione's comments about community & outreach."
    
    Mr. Grant went on to describe the uniformly positive feedback they have received from various segments of the population in Monte Rio, & concluded that:
    
    "... quite frankly, it [the tone of Mr. Guccione's comments] is a slap in the face ... & I don't appreciate it."
    
    I expected Mr. Grant to ceremoniously peel off a white glove from his hand, slap Mr. Guccione across both cheeks with it, & challenge him to a duel, but ... oops, wait, wrong century ... never mind.
    
    RRROC representative, Mr. Uniack, raised some questions about the numbers & projected revenues from events & conferences, which the folks from MRRPD responded to in a reasonably satisfactory fashion (i.e., we've done our homework & have researched comparable facilities, but we're not fortune tellers).
    
    Mr. Uniack also -- after praising MRRPD for the work they've put into their presentation -- very sensibly asked why RRROC should provide funding for remodeling a facility that is in the flood zone. The people from MRRPD explained that:
    
    (a) A tear-down & rebuild would be far more expensive & would also trigger a myriad of red-tape & potential delays from the Permits & Resources Department;
    
    (b) The building, surfacing & floor materials will enable the building to withstand floods. The Koret Club could be fully operational within a matter of days following the receding of flood waters; and
    
    (c) They will have some sort of efficient pumping device to quickly remove water from the building.
    
    Moving or raising the building would cost massive amounts of funds & permits. They're trying to "work within the parameters." By simply remodeling the facility, they can avoid many complications, issues & costs. For example, a new building would require a fire-safety water sprinkler system that alone would cost over $100K. They pointed out that they don't need a sprinkler system because there are plenty of fire exits.
    
    Someone at the meeting broke the tension by calling out, "So if there's a fire, everyone could get out safely, but the building would burn to the ground?" & just about everyone laughed uproariously.
    
    MRRPD responded that this scenario would be unlikely due to the building's concrete & heavy timber construction, along with the presence of the Monte Rio Fire Station next door.
    
    PUBLIC COMMENTS:
    
    Ms. Kane asked about something called "contingency funds" & wants it as a "line item" in the proposal. Huh? Um, it does sound awfully official & hence like something we should probably have.
    
    Larry Weinstein asked ... if we have a "100-year-flood" (a flood that reaches the highest level on record) could this facility handle an emergency? Could it be used as a command post or emergency shelter? (um, yeah ... if you happen to be a fish ... didn't he hear the previous discussion about flooding? Guess not, oh well, neither did I).
    
    Mr. Wikle responded that the County Action Plan designates the fire station for these purposes & that since the facility IS in the flood zone, this discussion is a non-starter.
    
    Mr. Carmichael said he was glad to see the RRROC "supporting innovative projects" but he would like to see "greener" (environmentally sound &/or recycled) building materials & architecture. He would also like to see a heated indoor pool for year-round use by residents.
    
    Oooh! I would LOVE to have green construction & a heated indoor pool! Get in touch with me! It's too late for the Koret Club, but maybe we can find some organization to buy the Rio Nido Pool, Bar & Restaurant facility from Dee & Midge (they're trying to sell it for $350K) & develop it with these goals in mind.
    
    Elisabeth Parker from Rio Nido asked why none of the proposed projects (Koret Club, River Park stage, affordable housing, etc.) ever consider the possibility of "floating houses" like they have in the Netherlands (aka Holland) -- which is notoriously located below sea level. Floating buildings look like conventional structures but are constructed & chained to their foundations in a manner that allows them to float on the surface of flood waters instead of taking on water.
    
    Mr. Wikle responded that his committee had considered similar possibilities for creating affordable housing, but that the Permits & Resources Management Department (PRMD) will never allow anything like this. Sigh. The PRMD people are such party-poopers.
    
    Chairman Fein put the funding request up for a vote & the RRROC unanimously voted to fund the Koret Club Rehabilitation Project. The RRROC meeting adjourned for a break. Congratulations & hugs were shared amongst those who weren't busy sucking down cigarrettes in the parking lot outside.
    
    CONGRATULATIONS are in order for MRRPD & the various other folks involved in this proposal. They've worked awfully hard for this, including gathering public input & doing their planning accordingly. They TOTALLY ROCK!
    
    B. Guerneville River Park: The intrepid & long-suffering Mark Cleveland (Park Planner for Sonoma County Regional Parks) yet again stands before RRROC to request the additional $110K funding to complete Phase I of construction to the new Guerneville River Park (located across the river via Guerneville Footbridge on Neeley Road).
    
    RRROC Representative, Tom Lynch, states that RRROC wants a redesign of the stage area. They want something larger, more innovative (in terms of materials & aesthetics) & a possible relocation for the building site. He adds that RRROC can provide additional funding to ensure that the stage is "done right" (i.e. with further community input, more bids, etc.)
    
    Mr. Cleveland replies that he likes the currently-planned location for the stage area, but that he could make it larger if they find a new location.
    
    Mr. Lynch also points out that the newly-planted trees could ruin the sight-lines towards the current location of the stage in the future (i.e., the trees may eventually block people's views).
    
    Mr. DeSalvio suggests moving the stage to the other side of the field by the river. Mr. Cleveland says that the stage area could work well under the Guerneville Foot Bridge.
    
    Mr. Lynch says that he "googled" (performed a Web search) for the key words "band shells" & saw lots of cool & inspiring stuff. He then suggested pulling the stage out of the budget for now so we can move on with construction for the rest of the park while doing more research & gathering community input on what we want for the stage. Personally, I think this is a great idea because the stage has great potential for community involvement & community use, as well as potential revenue. We need to take care that the location, acoustics, visual aesthetics all work together to create a magical experience for performers & audiences alike. It would also be nice if the stage could serve multiple functions (i.e. smaller performances & events, as well as a dry -- though possibly cold -- meeting place in the off-season).
    
    RRROC member Catherine Young said that she doesn't want to be locked into the stage designs. She wants to explore design modifications & wants more aesthetic improvements, including different surface materials. She wants more "showcase projects" that will get higher levels of funding from other sources. Although I appreciate her vigilance on behalf of the new park's aesthetics, I am ticked off at her because -- at the time of this meeting -- she had not ONCE visited the new park.
    
    Yes, the construction & fixtures do look institutional & I do feel we need to do something about that. On the other hand, the park is beautiful & useable. The bathroom, picnic tables, pedestrian path, parking lot, etc. are fully functional & look lovely in this setting because just about anything would look lovely in this setting. We can work with this, & we need to work with this, because this is what we have.
    
    Mr. Cleveland said that he is willing to work with RRROC on the stage, but that he wants to stick to the rest of the park design for Stage 1 as originally planned. The work is already done, according to the original plans & budget for yearly maintenance, etc. & he doesn't want to reinvent the wheel.
    
    Mr. DeSalvio says he wants to see more imagination put into the project so it doesn't look like a generic/institutional park. Mr. Uniack says that he wants to see something that is "people-friendly" & that he does not see cinderblocks & drop-off hazards as being people-friendly.
    
    Mr. Cleveland throws his proverbial hands up in the air and demands, "What DO you want?" He adds that he is willing to work with RRROC on redesigning the stage, but as for the rest of the project, "We should just build the damned thing."
    
    Ms. Young responds that perhaps they have a vast difference in philosophies, but she doesn't want to "just build the danged thing."
    
    Ms. Kane suggests that the reason so many cities & towns are choosing to build these institutional-looking parks is because they are so easy to maintain. She cautions RRROC to strike a balance.
    
    The majority Ms. Young's points resonate with me because I do value aesthetics & also want our park to reflect the creativity & uniqueness of our community. Alas, it has come out over the course of the past two RRROC meetings that Ms. Young has never even once bothered to visit the site of the River Park (hopefully she has done so by now). This annoys me to NO END, because she is supposed to represent our community & so many folks in our community have worked awfully danged hard to get this park built. The least Ms. Young can do is take a walk over the Guerneville Footbridge & see things for herself before making critical comments. Shame on her.
    
    Mr. Cleveland & others vociferously suggested that Ms. Young actually go & visit the park.
    
    Mr. Lynch said that it would be nice to have the park up & running for summer.
    
    Mr. Fein wisely suggested putting the stage/performance area outside of the scope of the project & to create a short-term (ad-hoc) committee to do a quick study & make reccommendations in time for the next meeting.
    
    PUBLIC COMMENTS:
    
    During the public comments period for this topic, much was said.
    
    Mr. Guccione said that he "Likes what people are saying" and points out that there's a "lesson here." According to him, the project & funding request should have gone to the Infrastructure Committee & we should have appointed a liaison officer to follow the project from start to finish.
    
    Ms. Parker suggested sticking with the current design for the park, but creating grants for local artists, craftsmen & landscapers to enliven the park with public arts & crafts spaces which could make the park our own.
    
    Don McEnnis from RiverKeepers suggested that "what makes the park unique is the setting & the river." He envisions a striking & symbiotic contrast between the County park on one side of the river & his park on the other side of the river. Public art can work, he's seen it done successfully in public spaces in Healdsburg (alas, even the thought of Healdsburg makes me break out into hives & vomit copiously, but if mentioning Healdsburg inspires us to create nicer public spaces for ourselves, then I guess I'm on-board with that).
    
    Mr. Carmichael called attention to the awfully bizarre & ill-defined signage that occurs throughout the park (mostly arrows pointing to undeveloped areas & saying that you shouldn't go there). He succinctly pointed out that the Guerneville Bridge is our pride & joy & most beautiful landmark. It functions as a backdrop for our entire scene. He said that public art on the bridge (starting with paintings &/or murals on the pillars & underside of the bridge) would be an excellent move in this direction & also suggested removing the dense tangle of thorny blackberry vines for better accessibility.
    
    A motion was advanced for creating a short-term, Ad-Hoc Parks Committee which will visit & explore the Guerneville River Park site; have a discussion; & make recommendations for the future design vis-a-vis the current proposal. The motion passed unanimously & the Ad-Hoc Parks Committee (with Mr. De Salvio, Mr. Uniack, Ms. Young, & Mr. Lynch) met the following Saturday & will make recommendations at the next RROC meeting.
    
    
11. New Business
    
    A. Preliminary RRROC Annual Budget:
    
    
    Ms. Kane presents the RRROC annual budget for the upcoming year. She states that the available funds are based on "what we project for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008", & further descrived "flatlining revenues this year, with the real estate market sagging." Ms. Kane provided hand-outs & listed projected activities for the upcoming year, & then explained that there are some "holes" (un-projected estimates) because she is still waiting for more numbers & has not completed the "draft" document.
    
    Mr. Uniack inquires about the flat 15% administration fee, which the County charges for managing the Russian River Redevelopment project. He points out that the administrative costs increase as the available revenues increase, & requests an explanation for these cost increases.
    
    Ms. Kane explains that providing "structure" is expensive & that the amount of work has expanded. "You're active out here." [referring to the forceful amounts of input from us River folks] "It's a lot of work. We are experiencing higher levels of costs." Ms. Kane adds that the County "might not necessarily spend" all of the allocated funds. "We are not charging for any services that you are not getting."
    
    Ms. Kane then resentfully & pointedly adds, "We need a trusting, working relationship."
    
    Mr. Uniack inquires, "If we pay more money, can we receive more services?" He then asks if a 15% administration fee is within the realm of standard practice, & is duly informed by counsel that 15% is, indeed, the going rate & that the 15% was established in due process by the board of supervisors.
    
    Ms. Kane attempts to explain that there are ways to get more services, but she wants & needs to keep the 15% administration fee as a line-item in her department's budget. She can't create a "kitty within the administration budget" for the RRROC. The 14% is merely a ceiling. They can't go OVER that amount.
    
    Mr. Guccione protests about how the estimate & actual costs "don't jibe." He then goes on to say that "you have a right to expect more services" if you are paying more dollars. "If you give a bureaucracy money, they're gonna spend it." He then proposes a workshop.
    
    Despite the bitterness between Mr. Uniack & Ms. Kane, & the acrimony between Mr. Guccione & just about everyone else, the motion to approve the RRROC annual budget passed.
    
    B. Russian Riverkeeper Update & Funding Request:
    
    Don McEnnhill provides an update for Phase I of his project (to create an eco-park on the West Bank of the Russian River) & requests an additional $87, 665 towards completing Phase II.
    
    Mr. McEnhill explains that his organization wants to hire Ron Letzgo -- the "best landscape architect we can find" -- because he has done high-profile projects like Golden Gate Park & can provide the aesthetics/green/eco-elements along with the ability to design the park to withstand floods.
    
    A discussion ensues about some property that Riverkeeper wants to buy. The County "won't touch it" because there's a gas-leak on part of the property. Talks are also going on -- Riverkeepers needs an easement through this property to get to the river. The county owns some of the land & Cal Trans owns some of the land they need. They've totally lost me here. HUH?
    
    Mr. Fein tries to sort things out by suggesting, "So, the bulk of the proposal is [blah blah blah] a precursor to construction? Or for planning?"
    
    Mr. McEnnis reiterates: "We can get grants for construction if we can get funding for planning." [um ... what comes first, the chicken or the egg]. He goes on to say that Riverkeepers is "... competing with County Parks. Riverkeepers looks good to some organizations because of the native plants..." (i.e., they're eco-friendly), but they don't have the county resources.
    
    Ms. Young asks who owns the property.
    
    Mr. McEnnis explains that Riverkeepers owns the property & wants to set up an endowment for maintaining it in perpetuity. He enthuses about the place as a "great educational facility" & about how people can learn about beneficial plants vs. poisonous plants, etc.
    
    C. Woodstove Replacement Program:
    
    The program has been reinstated, but only as a housing-funded project (meaning that it falls under the allocations for community housing). So those who stillwant to replace their woodburning stoves will have to fill out more forms, jump through more hoops & meet income qualifications.
    
    D. Role of Infrastructure Subcommittee: (tabled until next time)
    
    E. Youth Outreach Subcommittee: (tabled until next time)
    
    F. Website Enhancements: (tabled until next time)
    
    
12. Public Comment: Not much was discussed.
    
13. Agenda for Next Meeting: Not much was discussed.
    
14. Adjournment: At this point, it was 11pm & the meeting adjourned. The following topics have been moved to the next meeting: (1) the Role of the Infrastructure Committee; (2) The formation of a Youth Outreach Subcommittee (umm, while you guys are at it, howzabout another Outreach Subcommittee for people who can't come to meetings in the evenings, like parents with young chidren & folks who work evening shifts?); & Website enhancements.

NEXT MEETING: MARCH 15th, 2007 at the Guerneville Veteran's Hall at First & Church Streets in Guerneville (by the entrance to Johnson's Beach).