Is the Montara Water & Sanitary District overstepping its authority?
CPR recently asked for input from the Coastside County Water District regarding a question of MWSD taxing outside its jurisdiction. Read the letter below for information on why this might be:
Californians for Property Rights
c/o Terrence D. Gossett
193 Reef Point Road
Moss Beach, CA 94038
March 8, 2005
Board of Directors
Coastside County Water District
766 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Honorable Directors:
Please find attached here a report presented to our organization by Don Bacon, a Montara resident, that researches an apparent boundary discrepancy at the Montara Water & Sanitary District. We respectfully request your opinions regarding the issues described in the report, County Counsel’s response to it, and a resultant Half Moon Bay Review article. Neither Mr. Bacon nor CPR can guarantee the accuracy of the information provided: at this stage we are soliciting input from expert sources such as yourselves, to either corroborate or contradict the apparent findings. This letter will attempt to provide a thumbnail sketch of the subject, along with a brief description of the taxation and electoral anomalies that appear to have resulted from the boundary discrepancy.
SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECT AND ATTACHED DOCUMENTSThe January 12th, 2004 report was prepared to explore a fairly narrow question, namely: how could rural-designated properties in Montara and Moss Beach, that have been legislatively barred since 1980 from MWSD’s water and sewer service, still be included in the utility’s taxing jurisdiction? The report’s surprising discovery was that upon completion of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program in 1980, the district’s service area was significantly reduced to its current dimensions, yet the district never filed the required change-of-boundary statements with the State Board of Equalization and County Controller. So its taxation (and electoral) jurisdiction has never been changed to correspond to its much-reduced service area.
This apparent discovery did a lot more than explain a taxation anomaly. As LAFCo, San Mateo County Counsel, the Board of Supervisors and Coastal Commission discussed at a meeting held on January 14, 2004, the district may have been exercising powers and authority it has not lawfully possessed since 1980.
County Counsel sent Mr. Bacon the letter included here, agreeing with the central finding of his report while denying direct responsibility to correct the problem. The County/State meeting participants took the story to the HMB Review (article included here), agreeing that the boundary discrepancy exists, but generally denying authority to intervene.
One reason CPR is approaching CCWD about this subject now, is that the article, paraphrasing Supervisor Gordon, mentions a circumstance where the County or LAFCo could intervene:
“The County has no authority to force MWSD to redraw its boundaries, unless the district were to apply for a permit, in which case complying with the LCP could be added as a condition of approval.”
Martha Poyatos, San Mateo County LAFCo Executive Director, has explained to Mr. Bacon that an MWSD application to LAFCo to annex service area, such as the application that is agendized for discussion at your March 8, 2005 CCWD board meeting, constitutes an opportunity to require implementation of LCP Policy 2.14b:
“The County will redraft the boundaries of special districts or public utilities providing urban level services to correspond to the boundaries of urban areas…and rural residential areas established by the Local Coastal Program.”
This would apparently bring LCP implementation into congruity with State Government Code 54900 et seq., requiring submission of special district change-of-boundary statements to the State Board of Equalization and County Controller in order to rectify tax, electoral and service area boundaries.
The January 12th report was presented by Mr. Bacon to MWSD general counsel at the January 15th, 2004 district board meeting, where rural-designated Montara property owners were objecting to the bond tax (which finances the 2003 purchase of the Cal-Am water system) being levied upon rural properties the water system is prohibited from serving. Although aspects of the tax dispute were batted back and forth between the rural owners and district directors through a few board meetings, the directors declined to publically discuss or agendize the boundary issue. *TAX AND ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES OF APPARENT BOUNDARY DISCREPANCY*MWSD’s taxation and electoral jurisdiction appears not to have been made coterminous with its service area as changed by the 1980 LCP. The situation has resulted in a number of anomalies.
1. Because the district’s tax jurisdiction has been larger than its service area from 1980-present, MWSD collects a portion of the general (1%) tax from rural properties it is legislatively barred from serving. As a result, a portion of a Montara/Moss Beach rural property’s general taxes finances a special district whose utility services are legally prohibited to that property and its residents. It would appear that only special districts which are entitled to serve the rural properties and their residents should participate in the rural-area general tax allocation. Also, the other general tax beneficiaries (special districts such as school, fire, harbor, junior and community colleges, library, roads and lighting, etc.) have apparently been deprived of rural-area general tax revenue from 1980-present, that has been misallocated to MWSD. 2. An analogous problem appears to occur with special taxes, such as the bond tax MWSD collects to pay for the water system takeover. Because its tax jurisdiction has not been rectified with its reduced service area, rural-area Montara/Moss Beach properties are levied the bond tax, while prohibited in perpetuity from being included in the water system’s service area.3. One of the electoral consequences of MWSD’s apparent boundary discrepancy is that the district’s elected officials are not required to reside in the water and sewer service area. Because the district’s electoral jurisdiction is larger than its service area, it is possible to hold elective MWSD office without being a customer of the water or sewer utility.
Presumably the property owners and residents within the district’s service area have the right to be represented by elected officials who are themselves customers of the utility, or at least not prohibited from being customers of the utility. That way district directors would be forced to share, with the other utility customers, the day-to-day practical consequences of the utility policies they implement.
Thank you in advance for your assistance in helping us understand the issue of MWSD’s apparent boundary discrepancy. CPR is of the opinion that a broad public interest can be served through this issue’s resolution, and hope that CCWD Directors agree.
Respectfully submitted,
Terrence D. Gossett for
Californians for Property Rights