 |
                       |
The MSR states "District wishes to divest itself of three parcels of real estate." but also notes that supplemental comments from the District indicate our desire to evaluate community support for park and recreation services, including all necessary evaluations of these proposed changes. We also note that evaluation of park and recreation opportunities are only one of many possibilities for District property and that the Board has never committed to any particular outcome. We would, however, like to emphasize our commitment to the community to undertake a thorough process to determine the fate of District property. We intend to examine; ownership options, legal constraints, financial planning, analysis of parks and recreation service opportunities in the context of community desires, and only then to proceed with changes to the land ownership, management and public access, if any. To date, the District has actively considered or is considering more than 15 different options for the possible disposition of the real estate owned by the District. In the context of this ongoing process, dissolution of the District would make it difficult for District residents and the County to re-start this process and achieve the above goals in a timely and cost-effective manner. We believe our District can be highly efficient in determining and implementing community desires because we are small, local, and will of necessity restrain costs associated with any new community desired services. We would also like to correct a factual error in this section. We do not consider the body of water on parcel 3 to be a reservoir. Research in the early records shows it to be a natural feature, once used to store drinking water but which currently fills via springs and storm water runoff and is available for emergency purposes. It has not been utilized as a reservoir for more than 30 years.
These projections are somewhat lower than those determined in a study paid for by the District and approved by the County planning department. However, any changes within this range will have minimal impact on District operations and land-use planning.
The District considers the water services rebate program to be a formal obligation entered into with our constituents during negotiation for sale of the water services to CalWater. This plan was an integral part of the commitments made to the District customers and taxpayers in 2002. The plan for rebates was verbally agreed to by both a member of the Board of Supervisors and by the executive head of LAFCO. The executive head of LAFCO attended the meeting in which these commitments were presented to the District customers. Integral to the rationale for this rebate program is the fact that the customers of the Los Trancos County Water District invested heavily through high monthly service and new connection fees over a period of many years to build a first class water distribution system. This investment resulted in a system that was of sufficient integrity and quality that it was an attractive investment to Cal Water, which is now able to offer ongoing water distribution services at a substantially lower cost than the District could foresee. Dissolution of the District would end this rebate program effectively eliminating the expected return on investment of District ratepayers. Elimination of local control over this tax revenue would force District taxpayers to advocate for tax uses at the County level. A process that we believe would create an additional burden on local residents and County employees and officials. At the October 20th, 2006 meeting, the Board formally increased the rebate plan to $12.00 per month plus $1.00 per unit of water purchased. At this level approximately 60% of all of the District’s revenues is being rebated to the local homeowners as promised. Should the District remain as a local government agency, the already low costs of operation would be maintained. Insurance, legal expenses, elections and other expenses are well within the financial capacity of the existing tax structure. The District Board is actively pursuing opportunities to drive operational overhead costs down through minimizing legal cost, more competitive bidding on insurance coverage, and use of volunteers to perform some of the maintenance of District real estate. Adjustments to the water rebate structure are possible to cover long-term debts or other programmatic changes that are agreed to by the constituents and Board of Directors. Continuation of the District would permit District residents to advocate for rebate rate restructuring to accomplish other District activities, when and if such activities were sought by the community and approved by LAFCo. For example, the District could finance water conservation programs by altering rebate amounts. Dissolution of the District would place such programmatic opportunities at the County level, which again would either be absent or operate less efficiently at determining and implementing programs benefiting our constituents. As noted above, the District is reviewing a number of land use options. Some of these options focus specifically on shared management or ownership of District property. Continuation of the District will permit full exploration of these opportunities within the context of community desires. Dissolution of the District will force such land use decisions on the County and likely result in a less efficient and more expensive process. If the District were dissolved, the County may end up acquiring the responsibility and cost of maintaining the lake currently cared for by the District. The District Board, as noted throughout, strongly favors continued existence of the District, through thorough evaluation and subsequent activation of both water-related and other services, as provided for under water code enabling legislation. We note throughout our desire as a Board to serve as efficient and effective representatives of County taxpayers within our service area. The Board was advised by LAFCo, our County Supervisor and our legal counsel to separate the water services sale from any land use decisions. Now that the Board has successfully negotiated a superior water services arrangement, we have begun the next phase of District business. We believe we can successfully evaluate community desires related to water conservation, emergency preparedness, and land use decisions better than the County, because we are closely tuned to District residents and have an efficient management structure. Further, in cases where District and County or other local agencies (e.g. Woodside Fire, Mosquito abatement) have overlapping responsibilities, the District can serve as a single point of contact to effectively address issues that are relevant to District real estate or scope of services. Regarding water related program improvements, the Board is aware that water conservation programs are very important to our constituency. We are in the best position to understand the opportunities and constraints of various water conservation measures, and to implement programs that are uniquely suited to an all single family, residential community. As water rates escalate rapidly over the next 5-7 years, conservation will be a key element in helping property owners keep control of their cost of water while sustaining the quality of life offered in our community Regarding emergency preparedness services, our community has been very active in emergency preparedness planning. The lake on Parcel 3 is an obvious source of water for fire protection in severe emergencies, and we have already initiated discussions with the Woodside Fire District to analyze means that ensure that this source is readily available in an emergency. Further, a severe emergency (for example a severing of the Hetch Hetchy connection prior to earthquake upgrades) in water supply availability may necessitate the lake serving as a source of domestic albeit perhaps not drinking water. We anticipate working with our established community organizations to evaluate the resources that would be required to make our community water self sufficient for a period of weeks or months in the case of such a severe emergency. It is our belief that in both these cases, the District can serve as a valuable community resource to plan appropriate community self-reliance in the types of disasters we anticipate. We also believe, with all due respect to the County and other local entities, that locally designed and maintained solutions are the best way to maximize personal safety in crises. In fact, WFD has emphasized to our community that we will be on our own in a severe regional emergency, the District should play a vital role in supporting water-related preparedness planning. Disadvantages of dissolution are numerous and mentioned throughout. To summarize, loss of the rebate program will dishonor our commitment to our constituents, servicing the $750,000 in short and long-term debts of the District would likely result in an additional parcel tax on District taxpayers instead of using current tax revenues to manage these debts, removal of decision making authority to the County will likely result in a less efficient or thorough process, all but eliminating the opportunity for taxpayers to advocate for the programs and services the District can provide. The District is an efficient entity in that it relies principally on volunteers to manage District business. Continuation of the District well retain this efficiency, and supports increased efficiency at the County level because the District assumes the obligation of obtaining community support for District programs and using local tax revenues to finance programs supported by the community. |
|
|
|
|
|