By Sam Richards

Staff writer

Friday, August 8, 2025 (9:00 a.m.): Rejecting a recommendation from the Policy Committee, the RWC Board on Thursday voted not to rename the Rossmoor News’ letters to the editor section from “Residents Forum” to “Members Forum,” with most Board members insisting the paper’s letters section should be open to Rossmoor’s broader community, and not just legally defined “members.”

“Our newspaper is a community newspaper, and it should be open to all members of the community,” said Board member Dwight Walker, one of the eight directors who rejected the recommendation to limit letters to Rossmoor “members” – owners of condos, shareholders of a co-op unit or designated occupants as identified by the home’s owner or shareholder – that could be published in the Rossmoor News. A members-only requirement would have excluded renters, tenants or co-occupants, such as adult children or caregivers living with members, from having letters published in the paper.

The Policy Committee’s recommendation for a change would have been in keeping with the Board’s May vote to limit public comment at RWC Board or committee meetings to “members” only. Ann Peterson, Rossmoor’s communications director, said that while there was legal justification for changing the rules regarding comment at public meetings, the same legal standard doesn’t exist for the Rossmoor News. The change would have been more a matter of maintaining consistency with the Members Forum requirements for public meetings, which the Board approved in June.

The dissenting vote Thursday was cast by Ted Bentley, who said, “I don’t think people who aren’t personally vested in Rossmoor should have a say-so in what we do here.”

But other Board members said it is important to publish letters from anyone living in Rossmoor, and to hear all the perspectives. Board member Susan Hildreth said she opposed the change “in the interest of community spirit.”

Staff compensation

The RWC Board on Thursday unanimously approved a 2% base wage increase for 2026, after deciding the 1.5% rise in June of the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the Bay Area region was too small for basing pay raises on.

Since 2017, except for the pandemic year of 2020, the Board has been using the CPI-U percentage to determine annual employee base salary adjustments. Those numbers, until this year, have ranged from 3.2% to 5%.

The Board also voted Thursday to include in the 2026 RWC Budget enough money for a corresponding 2% pay increase for General Manager Jeff Matheson. His 2025 salary is $307,000.

In following a third recommendation by the RWC Compensation Committee, the Board on Thursday also approved funding a $115,000 merit/market adjustment pool for 2026. Money from this pot will recognize superlative staff performance and help improve wage competitiveness of certain positions.

Action on the merit/market adjustment pool generated a fair amount of discussion. Some Board members, like Hildreth and Carol Lehr, said they felt $115,000 wasn’t enough. Hildreth made a motion for a $120,000 merit pool, but Board members including Walker objected. “Anything beyond a 2% increase hits the coupon,” he said. A Board vote to support a $120,000 merit pool fund failed on a 5-4 vote; moments later, the Board unanimously approved the suggested motion for a $115,000 pool.

The wage increase and merit pool information approved Thursday will be used to help formulate RWC’s 2026 operating budget.

Board’s 2026 goals

The Board on Thursday made official its goals for 2026. They are:

• Water conservation – A carryover from each of the past few years, it calls for exploring water-saving strategies, including non-functional turf removal and promoting access to recycled water. Board members have said achieving this goal will probably require a regional collaboration, notably with the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) and the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and perhaps other entities as well.
• Developing metrics for community services – This is about finding ways to measure the use and effectiveness of Rossmoor’s community services, programs and amenities.
• Insurance – Evaluating and pursuing options to address insurance costs, including exploring changes to renewal timing (see related story in this edition) and broader community strategies.
• Legislative advocacy – Maintain active engagement with legislators on issues impacting Rossmoor and the Mutuals, including insurance, fire prevention and public safety. Maintaining good relations with the City of Walnut Creek and area agencies is a key ingredient to success here.

The goals were formulated during a Board retreat in May and were discussed at the Board’s June meeting. The goals are designed to adhere to the “SMART” model, that they be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely. The Board approved these goals by an 8-1 vote, with Roy Yang dissenting, saying he supported taking more time to evaluate newly added suggestions.

Paying for paving

On an 8-1 vote, the Board approved spending up to $294,000 from RWC’s operating budget to pay Silicon Valley Paving Inc., based in San Jose, for slurry seal treatment on parts of four Rossmoor streets.

The work is set to be done on Tice Creek Drive between Avenida Sevilla and Singingwood Court; Oakmont Drive between Rockledge Lane and Pine Knoll Drive; and the entire length of both Oakmont Way and Pine Knoll Drive.

Slurry seal is a mixture of asphalt emulsion, sand, water and other additives applied to form a thin layer on top of existing asphalt, extending the pavement’s life.

Yang again was the lone “no” vote, saying he believed he and perhaps other Board members needed to inspect these streets themselves before taking action. Ann Mottola, Rossmoor’s community services director, countered by saying the experienced RWC Maintenance office inspects Rossmoor streets “almost weekly” and is aware of the level of maintenance the streets require.