However, there are many different components to the proposed participation fee plan- and that is where things got confusing to both the developers in attendance and the Board. Director Heinz Hamaan made it very clear that he did not think there was a good enough level of detail in the staff report and cited specifically that the method in which the agency staff arrived at the new participation fee was not clear and that the components were not identified as well. “I’m not ignorant with respect to this kind of stuff with mater presented difficult to understand,” he later added that “If I don’t understand how this is being derived how can I vote on it,” said Hamaan. The board seemed to share the same sentiment. Developers from throughout the County came to the meeting to express their opinions about the new fee schedule, and all expressed support in providing for new development. What did concern them however, was the method in which the AWA arose at the numbers in their report, because that method was not displayed clearly in the information. 

Krista Clem, the Mokelumne Bluffs and Golden Vale Project Manager, encouraged the board to put off adopting the new schedule so as it could be discussed further in a group setting. Clem said, “…there are more ideas I think need to be brought to the table.” She cited other information that needed to be brought forward such as issues she found with the nexus study. Director Dave Thomas asked if the combined method is a standard approach to participation fees and Lee explained that Reed Group, who has done the agency’s studies for some time now, said it was a perfectly legal and acceptable way of charging the fees. Rob Aragon, of JTS Communities, explained to the board that he feels that they have a working relationship with the agency and have developed a relationship of trust and that he plans on adhering to that standard and pointed out that he has known for some time that the fees would raise and should raise. He complimented the agency staff by calling them “top shelf” and said that they have always shown a willingness to sit and talk with local developers about issues or concerns, however he said that in turn there needs to be an open line of discussion and information and regarding the participation fees “the information is not there.” Aragon concluded by saying, “We’re not against the fee increase, but we need to work with staff and professionals and come to some congruence on what that fee should be.”

The BIA or Building Industry Association, had presented a letter to the board the day prior that also outlined their concerns. They cited legal requirements and apprehensions with the “buy in” methodology as well as the fee appearing to be project specific to name a few of their concerns. Again throughout the discussion the main issue among the board and the developers present seemed to be a lack of detail. Aragon pointed out in later comments that the board has a partner through the BIA, and they are willing to support the fee increase they just want the information surrounding how the board arose to the numbers and a clear indication of what the components are. After additional public comment and board discussion it was decided that the proposed fee increase did need further clarity and that it would be continued until August 9th where the missing links of the study and methodology will be presented. Director Dan Brown also suggested that if the board and public still feels they need more information after the August 9th meeting that they hold a special workshop.