August
27, 2014
San
Mateo Daily Journal
By
Samantha Weigel
After a scathing civil grand
jury report that called for the dissolution of the controversial San Mateo
County Harbor District, the Board of Commissioners submitted a detailed
response officials said they hope will set the record straight.
The district submitted a
13-page response to San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Lisa Novak dated Aug.
22. In it, the board states its broad range of duties is within its purview,
its financial practices are sound and many of the civil grand jury’s concerns
will be addressed through the strategic business plan it’s currently
developing.
The report “What is the price
of dysfunction?” alleges the special district, which operates on a $10 million
budget and collects about half of its revenue from countywide property taxes,
is mismanaged and its duties would be better served by the county and its Board
of Supervisors.
“I think that’s ridiculous that
they think of dissolving the district. The grand jury is comprised of
well-meaning individuals that do the best they can. But they’re not
professional investigators and that’s the hard thing,” Commissioner Jim Tucker
said. “I thought it was very political and I think it’s unfortunate that it’s
come to that.”
Commissioner Sabrina Brennan
said she was disappointed that each commissioner’s responses weren’t submitted
to the judge and will submit her own minority report that will include their
input verbatim.
Brennan said she questions
whether the district should continue its current path.
“I disagree with dissolution as
a recommendation at this time. If the November 2014 elections substantially
changes the makeup of the board, a new reform board could change policies and
fix the problems which the grand jury identified,” Brennan said.
The district has come under
strict public scrutiny after a stack of uncashed rent checks surfaced,
commercial fishing industry representatives claims that they’re misrepresented
and commissioners slinging insults in public forums.
According to the response, the district
openly acknowledges the criticism over a lack of collegiality among
commissioners and has hired a facilitator to help.
The district also states it
recognizes there is always room for improvement, but wants to clarify
misconceptions that paint it in an unfavorable light.
A broad role
The district has a myriad of
duties; it owns Pillar Point Harbor, contracts with South San Francisco to run
Oyster Point Marina, works with the U.S. Air Force to maintain the West Trail
near Mavericks, runs an RV park, sponsors the dredging of Surfer’s Beach and
other responsibilities. The district is also the first responder on the coast
to more than 100 ocean search and rescue calls per year, according to the
response.
The report suggested
divestiture of some of its duties, however, the district response said it
serves as a county asset and these activities are within its legal purview.
“The county is surrounded by
the San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean and these two bodies of water,
while both are separate, are so connected in terms of ecosystems, watersheds
and for transportation and food supply,” said Pietro Parravano, president of
the Board of Commissioners. “These are very important aspects that get lost in
the discussion of the Harbor District about why it’s needed in terms of
importance and existence.”
Budget
Brennan said she’s long been
concerned about the district’s financial transparency and accounting practices.
“I agree that the Harbor
District has a structural deficit,” Brennan said. “I’m not an accounting expert
and I would like an audit of all finance processes to determine whether or not
the district is meeting [Governmental Accounting Standards Board] reporting
requirements.”
The district’s response states
it provides financial data throughout the year and is available at request.
Grenell and Tucker added the
district had a more than $19 million loan from the state’s Department of
Boating and Waterways, which it is set to pay off a year early.
Funding operations
The report highlights the
district’s reliance on property taxes, which accounts for about half of its
revenue. It suggests the district wean itself off county funds by developing
more revenue-generating activities.
Parravano noted some of the
reports suggestions are already in the works, including hiring a consultant to
help it create a long-term strategic business plan.
The civil grand jury also
recommended differentiating its financial reporting based on enterprise and
non-enterprise activities.
The district responded it would
be impractical to directly link property tax revenue to specific expenses and
instead produces a districtwide budget that includes all revenue and
expenditures.
General Manager Peter Grenell
said there is a legislative basis that provides mandates for the district’s ability
to use countywide property taxes and it was important for the commissioners to
highlight how it serves the community as a whole.
Parravano said the district
uses property tax money to help manage some of the county’s coastal and Bayside
assets, which benefits businesses and the public.
“Residents can be assured that
when they visit these facilities, they’re going to be recognized as one that
they can call their own. This is something that’s part of the county
structure,” Parravano said. “They can have access to a lot of seafood,
transportation, coastal trails, kayaking and a lot of things that are really
beneficial in offering a quality of life for the residents of San Mateo
County.”
To read the Harbor District’s
response to the civil grand jury report visit www.smharbor.com.
samantha@smdailyjournal.com
No comments:
Post a Comment