Dispute over El Dorado Hills CSD vacancy leaves supervisors without a consensus; no appointment made

A dispute over a recently filed resignation at the El Dorado Hills Community Services District (CSD) drew the County Board of Supervisors into a contentious discussion on March 25 but ended without a county appointment.

Supervisor Verkamp had asked the Board to establish an ad‑hoc review process and, if necessary, appoint a successor under Government Code procedures after the CSD board failed to reach consensus. The CSD’s December 2024 election left four directors in place and produced a contested resignation: a newly elected director first submitted a resignation email in mid‑January, later expressed a desire to withdraw it, and the CSD board became deadlocked over whether to accept the resignation, appoint a replacement or hold a special election.

Multiple public commenters and local civic leaders urged the county to appoint a replacement instead of sending the matter to a special election. Speakers argued that the CSD board’s failure to act had paralyzed local decision‑making on matters including pending litigation, landscape & lighting assessments and the future of Bass Lake Regional Park projects. Commenters noted a November 2025 special election would cost the district roughly $75,000 and leave the board short a member for months.

County Auditor‑Controller Joseph Harner and other speakers urged a two‑by‑two meeting and confidential settlement discussions to reduce litigation costs before placing the matter before the Board for appointment. Public testimony included appeals both for immediate county appointment (several speakers urged that a candidate who placed third in the election be named) and for the board to let the local process play out.

Board members debated options during a lengthy floor discussion. Some supervisors urged the county not to intervene in local politics; others said the district’s inability to act meant the board should exercise its statutory option to appoint. One motion to advertise for applicants and form an ad‑hoc selection committee lacked a second and therefore failed. Another motion to take no action was proposed. The meeting record shows no formal appointment by the Board of Supervisors; staff and county counsel clarified that, if the county takes no action after the CSD’s 60‑day window for filling the vacancy, state law provides for a special election at the next general election.

Outcome: No appointment was made at the March 25 meeting. The vacancy and the CSD board impasse remain unresolved; the statute and meeting record indicate the matter may proceed to election procedures unless the CSD or the county takes alternative action.