EXHIBIT
18-F
DRAFT
FINDINGS
OF DENIAL
CONSIDER
APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER’S DECISION TO DENY A LAWN REMOVAL REBATE PURSUANT TO
DISTRICT RULE 141-D, - 1179 WARING STREET, SEASIDE (APN: 012-401-082)
1. FINDING: Ms. Emily Anne Smith (appellant) is
appealing a decision of the General Manager to deny a Lawn Removal Rebate for
1179 Waring Street, Seaside.
EVIDENCE: The appellants’ appeal application, received on April 4, 2011, is provided as Exhibit 18-B.
2. FINDING: The District received a Rebate Application from Ms. Smith on April 5, 2010.
EVIDENCE: Rebate Application dated April 5, 2010 (Exhibit 18-A).
3. FINDING: An April 15, 2010, an incompleteness letter was sent by the District to Ms. Smith informing her of additional actions required before the application could be deemed complete. The following items were identified as being required to complete the application:
· A Site plan of the current landscaping; include detailed measurements of the Lawn area.
· A Site plan showing the area and what will be installed in place of the Lawn.
· A second inspection after the Lawn replacement was installed.
· Receipts of purchased replacement materials.
· A District- prepared Notice and Deed Restriction for Limitation of Use of Water pertaining to Lawn Removal and Replacement had to be prepared and signed for recordation on the property title.
EVIDENCE: April 15, 2010, letter to Emily Smith, attached as Exhibit 18-D.
4. FINDING: The appellant did not provide or complete the items listed on the April 15, 2010, letter within six months as required by District Rule 141-D, and the application remains incomplete.
EVIDENCE: The District had no contact with the applicant until after a denial letter was sent on March 28, 2011. The application remains incomplete with all items on the list from April 15, 2010, outstanding.
5. FINDING: At the time the Rebate Application was submitted in April 2010, District Rule 141-D-10 stated that a complete Rebate Application and recordation of a Deed Restriction for Lawn removal must occur within six (6) months to qualify for a Rebate.
EVIDENCE: District Rule 141-D as of April 5, 2010 (Exhibit 18-E).
6. FINDING: The appellants contend that they were not notified by the District of the six month timeframe to complete the application process. The Appeal Application contends that because the April 15, 2010, incompleteness letter did not indicate the time limitation set by the Rule, the appellant was not notified of the need to complete the application process within a set time. Therefore, the appellant should be entitled to a Rebate at this time.
EVIDENCE: Application for Appeal (Exhibit 18-B).
7. FINDING: The appellant signed a Rebate Application on April 5, 2010, that states that complete applications will be processed in the order received, subject to available funding. The application refers applicants to the District’s website where the Rules and Regulations can be found or to the Permit and Conservation Office to determine eligibility.
EVIDENCE: Rebate Application for 1179 Waring Street, Seaside (Exhibit 18-C).
8. FINDING: As May 1, 2011, the Rebate application remains incomplete, and no funding is available for Lawn removal Rebates.
EVIDENCE: MPWMD records on file at the District office.
9. FINDING: On March 21, 2011, the Board suspended the Lawn Rebate Program.
EVIDENCE: Resolution 2011-07 adopted March 21, 2011, on file at the District office.
10. FINDING: On April 18, 2011, the District Board adopted Ordinance No. 148 to modify District Rule 141, the Water Conservation Rebate Program.
EVIDENCE: Ordinance No. 148, effective May 1, 2011, on file at the District office.
11. FINDING: The appeal of Ms. Emily Smith is denied as the appellant did not complete a Rebate Application in the timeframe stated in Rule 141-D.
EVIDENCE: The above stated facts.
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2011\20110516\PubHrng\18\item18_exh18f.docx