Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Castlewood Csa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge supervisors to pause Castlewood CSA dissolution as board approves stopgap funds
Summary
Castlewood residents warned supervisors that a proposal to backfill a $1.4 million shortfall and begin dissolution could saddle homeowners; the board approved interim measures authorizing an internal zero‑interest loan to cover the gap and directed staff to pursue governance alternatives and LAFCO conversations, while polices requiring larger appropriations failed in a subsequent vote.
County public works director Daniel Woldessenbach told the Alameda County Board of Supervisors that Castlewood CSA is an assessment‑funded service area facing a structural funding gap after residents rejected a low‑interest loan, leaving a $1.4 million shortfall in operations. He said the department proposes an intra‑account zero‑interest loan to avoid interest accrual and to maintain water and sewer services while exploring governance alternatives, including asking the city of Pleasanton to assume maintenance.
Residents and Castlewood Property Owners Association leaders told the board the county had mismanaged the CSA and urged supervisors to reject dissolution and asset transfers. Rick Hamill, president of the Castlewood Property Owners Association, described repeated outages and what he said were disconnected backup generators, saying the county had not fixed operational problems and asking supervisors to vote no or abstain on Item 74.
"The county refuses to accept responsibility," Hamill said during public comment, urging supervisors to "vote no or at the very least abstain from the vote on item 74." Mike Mitchell, the association vice president, said dissolving the CSA after stripping assets would place an "insurmountable" financial burden on residents and argued the county had violated a prior settlement.
Woldessenbach said county action in 2023 had authorized a $1.4 million loan that prevented an immediate service interruption, but with residents voting down repayment proposals the county must identify a way to keep delivering potable water and sewer service. He described the proposed intra‑account loan as a way to backfill the shortfall without accruing additional interest and said part of the $1.4 million is already funding repairs now.
Supervisors pressed the director on the LAFCO dissolution process, liability for allowing untrained residents to operate electrical connections to generators, and the feasibility of asking Pleasanton to take over operations. "You cannot deny people potable drinking water," Woldessenbach said, arguing the county had limited options if the shortfall remained.
Supervisor Tam moved to bifurcate the matter and to approve items A–E (policy direction) separately from the appropriations (items F–G). On the first motion (A–E), the clerk reported three yes votes, one abstention and one no and the motion passed. A subsequent roll call on the higher‑threshold items failed when the board split; President Halbert voted no and Supervisor Miley abstained on some votes, leaving F and G unapproved.
The board directed Public Works to pursue conversations with the city of Pleasanton, continue collaboration with the community and to return with follow‑up steps; the item’s approval for A–E authorizes the intra‑account loan mechanism to maintain service while governance alternatives and LAFCO processes are explored.
