September
9, 2014
San
Mateo Daily Journal
By Michelle
Durand
The
body governing San Mateo County’s special districts still favors dissolving the
Harbor District and handing its duties to the county and the city of South San
Francisco but wants to wait until after finishing a service review.
The
Local Agency Formation Commission agrees with a civil grand jury recommendation
to initiate a service review by Dec. 31 and, in its proposed response, suggests
doing so before moving ahead with any dissolution plans. LAFCo members will
vote on the recommended reply at its Sept. 17 meeting.
In
July, the county’s civil grand jury released a scathing report on the Harbor
District which operates Pillar Point Harbor on the coast and Oyster Point
Marina/Park in South San Francisco. The report tackled issues ranging from
finances to board dysfunction and ultimately concluded the special district
would be better off dissolved.
LAFCo,
the body that evaluates special districts, was named in the report and
therefore required to respond in writing within 90 days. However, the grand
jury reports carry no legal weight so any push to end the Harbor District is in
the hands of any city, district or voting majority although the latter has a
very high percentage threshold.
A
future municipal service review of the district could look at the potential of
San Mateo County becoming successor to Pillar Point Harbor and South San
Francisco taking on the duties of Oyster Point Marina.
Ideally,
an interested successor agency will be the one to prompt the dissolution, said
LAFCo Executive Officer Martha Poyatos.
Poyatos
said the county’s response to the grand jury, which has not yet come to the
Board of Supervisors for approval, might provide some insight into whether it
is interested in pursuing dissolution. The upcoming municipal review will also
have updated information on the district’s use, need and accountability along
with other analysis to drive the discussion.
“The
municipal services review will have a lot of the answers,” Poyatos said.
The
reviews are typically conducted in order but Poyatos said the Harbor District
will be pushed up slightly to begin the process by the end of the year as
requested. If the commission agrees to hire a consultant for the work as
recommended by Poyatos, the review could be completed by next June.
Although
the Harbor District currently remains intact, LAFCo has recommended its
dissolution for decades dating back to 1977. The commission has reaffirmed the
position — formally known as an adopted sphere designation of zero —
periodically, most recently in 2006. However, several attempts to follow
through have failed.
The
zero designation is not a reflection of the district employees, their services
or even discord within the governing board, Poyatos wrote in the proposed grand
jury response. Instead, it is based primarily on overlapping services with the
county like finance and administrative capabilities. In other words, the county
— which shares the exact same boundaries as the district — already has the
infrastructure in place to take on the district’s duties and provide the same
services.
The
position, and LAFCo’s position in its jury reply, largely echoes past
assessments.
“Not
a whole lot has changed,” Poyatos said.
What
might mean the difference now is the district’s heavy reliance on property tax
to offset operating costs which is different than the legislative intent of
Proposition 13. Special districts once used property tax for services like
police and fire but some like the Harbor District are using it to recover
service costs. County taxpayers pay the same amount but don’t necessarily reap
the benefits equally.
The
district operates on a $10 million budget with about half coming from property
tax.
“I
think that this might be a time when more people want to look at it much
deeper,” Poyatos said.
Although
board dynamics also don’t rate in the LAFCo designation, they have made
headlines as members bicker amongst themselves and with the general manager who
announced his retirement last week.
For
its part, the Harbor District Board of Commissioners did not take kindly to the
grand jury’s dissolution recommendation. In its own reply to the grand jury
report, the members disagreed with the idea although each offered an individual
perspective.
The
complete LAFCo response is available at lafco.smcgov.org/commission.
LAFCo
meets 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 17 in Board Chambers, 400 County Government
Center, Redwood City.
michelle@smdailyjournal.com
No comments:
Post a Comment