On Monday, April 20, the Bear Valley Community Services District (CSD) Board of Directors met to address a potential conflict of interest involving the CSD and the Bear Valley Springs Association (BVSA). This issue could require significant changes to how community amenities are operated.

Under the current lease agreement, enacted in 2007, the BVSA is responsible for operating amenities in Bear Valley Springs. However, concerns have been raised that this agreement may violate California Government Code Section 1090, which prohibits public officials from having a financial interest in contracts made by the agencies they serve.

The potential conflict arises because, under current BVSA rules, not all residents of Bear Valley Springs have equal access to amenities. For example:

• Renters are not eligible for amenity access unless the property owner relinquishes their own access.
• Adult children over the age of 26 living with homeowners are not eligible to use amenities.

Since the CSD Board of Directors includes members of the BVSA, who benefit from amenities not available to all residents, it could be argued that elected members of the CSD have a personal financial interest in the CSD’s contract with the BVSA.

To address this issue, the CSD has reviewed relevant Government Codes, as well as prior determinations from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and the California Attorney General. Based on this review, the CSD has requested a determination from the FPPC regarding whether a conflict of interest exists.

The FPPC does not have a set timeline for issuing advice, so it is unclear when a determination will be made.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

While awaiting guidance from the FPPC, the CSD is preparing for the possibility of an unfavorable ruling. If the FPPC determines that the current agreement constitutes a conflict of interest, significant changes to amenities may be required.

Failure to address a conflict could expose the CSD, its Board of Directors, and individual members to significant legal liability, including civil, administrative, and criminal penalties.

At the April 20 meeting, the Board discussed the situation and directed CSD staff to explore potential alternatives, including:

• Evaluating revenue models for the CSD to operate amenities directly.
• Exploring options to contract with outside agencies to operate amenities.

No decisions have been made at this time. The Board is proactively evaluating options in the event of an unfavorable ruling. It is also possible that the FPPC will determine no conflict exists, in which case no changes would be necessary.

In the interest of maintaining uninterrupted access to amenities for the community, the CSD is preparing for all potential outcomes.