|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District is suing the East Bay Regional Park District and seeking to exit a longstanding tax-sharing agreement between the two entities on allegations that the latter has failed to uphold its end of the deal in delivering local improvements.
LARPD announced the move in a press release Monday, with district officials saying they have tried for years with no success to “update and clarify” the tax-sharing agreement between the two districts, filing a formal claim against EBRPD on April 1 for its alleged failure to meet its obligations. EBRPD denied that claim May 12, with LARPD filing a notice May 29 to terminate the agreement, then a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court the next day.
“We remain committed to the belief that tax revenue should be used properly for the benefit of local taxpayers,” LARPD General Manager Mathew Fuzie said in the district’s press release. “Livermore taxpayers have not seen improvements promised to them in the 1992 tax-sharing agreement, and we are working to resolve that issue so that ultimately the needs of our community can be better met.”
LARPD’s notice to end the tax sharing agreement effective June 30 comes more than 30 years after the agreement inception in 1992, with LARPD having agreed to share a portion of its property tax revenue in exchange for EBRPD using the funds for building and improving parks, trails, and open spaces within LARPD’s service area.
According to EBRPD spokesperson Jordan Traverso, the agreement was born out of a “shared vision” between the two districts to provide and support open space facilities throughout all of Alameda County.
“The core objective was clear: to ensure that regional and local park services could coexist and thrive through a fair distribution of existing property tax revenues,” Traverso said.
Upon finalization of the agreement when EBRPD annexed what was formerly known as the Murray Township that made up the communities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore and Sunol, with EBRPD taking responsibility for acquiring, developing, and maintaining regional parks, open spaces and trails, while LARPD took responsibility for community and local park services, according to Traverso.
“This arrangement was not only equitable but also practical, allowing each district to leverage its strengths in serving the community’s diverse needs,” Traverso said.
Traverso contends EBRPD has lived up to its end of the deal and then some, receiving approximately $104.4 million in property tax revenues while spending more than $124 million, “not including EBRPD’s substantial investments in public safety services such as fire and police protection”.
Traverso said that the funding received by EBRPD under the tax-sharing agreement is “directly in line” with what it receives from other portions of Contra Costa and Alameda counties.
“This is by design,” Traverso said. “This ensures consistency and fairness in the provision of regional park services. “Moreover, the agreement explicitly provides for the participation of LARPD in all master planning processes related to regional parks within Murray Township, ensuring that local perspectives are respected and incorporated into decision-making.”
With participation and feedback from LARPD also being a part of that agreement, EBRPD has been seeking for months to hold a liaison committee meeting between the two districts, Traverso said, alleging that LARPD canceled the meeting at the last minute “without explanation”.
“We remain open to discussing with LARPD how best to maintain and enhance services in the Murray Township, as partners,” Traverso said.
In the extensive complaint filed last week, attorneys for LARPD argue that the funds allocated to EBRPD, along with funds that began being allocated to the state starting the following year when it adopted legislation on the education revenue augmentation fund (ERAF) leaves the district with minimal revenue to work with.
“Due to the unexpected reduction in property tax revenue caused by ERAF and the structure of the TSA tax sharing calculation, LARPD lacks sufficient funds to provide critical services to Murray Township,” attorneys for LARPD wrote in the complaint. “LARPD has been unable to fully fund capital and operational expenses. During the years since the TSA and ERAF, LARPD has repeatedly deferred maintenance projects due to lack of available funds.”
“In recent years, LARPD has seen increased demand for recreation facilities which exceeds its current capacity,” they continued. “LARPD lacks funds to increase services or the capacity of its facilities, all of which would be funded by the property tax revenues diverted to EBRPD.”
Meanwhile, they contend that EBRPD’s use of the revenues from the tax sharing agreement with LARPD is not in line with the terms of the tax sharing agreement, which only permits the use of those funds for the continued operation of regional trails and the acquisition, development and operation of regional parks as identified by its 1994 master plan.
“Despite this language in the TSA and the Concept Paper, EBRPD claims it can spend the property tax revenues from the TSA anywhere and on anything it likes,” attorneys for LARPD wrote. “This position is apparently needed to justify what EBRPD’s own data shows.”
Attorneys for LARPD said that public records from EBRPD document this pattern, arguing that the district has spent millions of revenue generated from the TSA with LARPD on projects outside of the Murray Township area, and on “improving, operating and maintaining pre-existing facilities that predate the TSA” including Lake De Valle State Recreation Area and Del Valle Regional Park – and that “these EBRPD expenditures do not meet the requirements of the TSA.”
Meanwhile, Traverso contended that a sizable portion of park visits by residents in the LARPD service area – 43% – are to parks outside of the area, according to a recent survey.
“This shows that Murray Township residents are benefiting from EBRPD’s 73 parks across the two counties,” Traverso said. “Residents also value the safety of EBRPD parks because EBRPD invests significant resources in public safety services such as police and fire.”
Nonetheless, LARPD’s attorneys argue that “EBRPD failed to perform as required by the TSA.”
“Property tax revenues from Murray Township should be spent in Murray Township for the benefit of its residents,” LARPD’s attorneys wrote. “The TSA requires this, and Murray Township residents deserve no less.”
In the lawsuit, LARPD is seeking to formally end the TSA, allowing LARPD to keep all of its property tax revenue that doesn’t go to the state under ERAF, and asking the courts to require that EBRPD “return prior misspent distributions of property tax revenues from Murray Township to LARPD.”
