|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District has requested an investigation of East Bay Regional Park District’s tax revenue spending in the Livermore Valley, an area representing shared responsibilities and funding for the park districts.
Amid accusations from LARPD directors that EBRPD is taking over $110 million of Livermore’s money, the local park district’s administration maintains that its call for a study is a standard part of reviewing a revenue-sharing agreement.
In addition to financial claims, LARPD directors have also called for annexation of Murray Township, land that Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission considers the Livermore Valley area and LARPD considers the far northeastern part of Alameda County.
LAFCO, an overseeing agency whose duties include studying and making recommendations for local governmental agencies, will release a municipal service review (MSR) that includes a response to LARPD’s call.Â
“If you were to walk on first street in downtown Livermore and talk to someone, I’d hope someone would have favorable things about both LARPD and East Bay Regional Park District,” said EBRPD Director Olivia Sanwong, whose Ward 5 includes Livermore. “I think we should keep the community in mind and try to work together.”
On Aug. 14, LARPD director tensions rose over the question of EBRPD spending.
“Our issue with East Bay: that they’re getting money and they’re not providing services,” LARPD Chair David Furst said. “East Bay is taking our money.”
At the LARPD’s meeting on Aug. 28, Furst corrected the board’s original claim of over $200 million in unaccounted funds to over $110 million since 1992. He argued that interest makes up the difference in these figures.
In a follow-up interview, LARPD General Manager Mathew Fuzie explained that claims by the board are their opinions intermixed with data and they do not express the district’s position on the issue.
Instead, Fuzie framed LARPD’s request to study EBRPD spending as a normal part of the MSR process.
LARPD has been asking where EBRPD funds are being used within the Murray Township for years, according to Fuzie.
Now that LARPD is struggling to pay for deferred maintenance of their facilities including water systems, equipment and painting, it’s time to take stock of the districts’ tax-sharing agreement, he said.
“We don’t want to go out to voters and ask for more money if the money is there,” Fuzie said. “So we want to account for where the money is, how it’s being used.”
But the board’s accusations of unaccounted and owed funds didn’t land well with Sanwong.
The claims are inaccurate, she said. And this is the first time EBRPD has heard them.
“It was shocking,” she said of the LARPD directors’ claims. “I was very surprised. I think that this type of thing probably should have been discussed between our two organizations.”
“EBRPD’s financial reports are publicly available, and our consistent receipt of the Distinguished Budget Award underscores our commitment to financial responsibility,” Sanwong told Livermore Vine, citing recognition from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada.
But the reports, including EBRPD’s “2024 Adopted Operating Budget Book”, don’t satisfy LARPD’s inquiry into EBRPD’s spending in the Livermore Valley area, according to Fuzie.
The disputed funds are those from a 1992 tax-sharing agreement between the two park districts. When EBRPD annexed the eastern portion of Alameda County near Livermore through negotiations with LARPD, the districts agreed to split the responsibility and property tax funding for Murray Township, according to EBRPD’s budget book.
EBRPD was to focus on acquiring and developing regional parks, open space areas and trails in the area as well as related maintenance and operations, according to its budget book. LARPD would continue to take primary care of “existing LARPD facilities and programs as well as for all future Murray Township community and local parks and recreation facilities, and related maintenance and operations.”
EBRPD received about $7.6 million in property tax revenues for the 2023-24 fiscal year and LARPD received about $12.9 million once about $12.6 million was deducted for educational revenue augmentation fund (ERAF), according to the LARPD’s 2024-25 budget.
EBRPD isn’t required to pay into ERAF because it is a multi-county organization, according to Sanwong.
Unadjusted for time, EBRPD has received about $111 million since fiscal year 1992-93 from property tax revenues and LARPD has received about $207 million.
The 276-square mile annexation meant EBRPD could expand regional parks and trail services to all of Alameda County.
EBRPD operates parks within the township and in direct service of its population. These locations include Del Valle, Camp Arroyo at Del Valle, Shadow Cliffs and Brushy Peak, according to its budget book. The operating budgets for these locations is over $4 million per year.
The funds go towards “trail grading and paving, maintenance and repairs, mowing, sanitation, police and fire services, lifeguards, utilities, signage, brochures, and similar park expenses,” according to the budget book.
Sanwong also noted that EBPRD voluntarily gives $200,000 to LARPD every year.
An additional investment in the area was EBRPD’s decision to base its helicopter unit near the Livermore airport earlier this year, according to Sanwong.
But the location may be reconsidered in the wake of Furst’s additional call for annexation of Murray Township, she said. However, EBRPD would likely never agree that LARPD could annex the area.
LAFCO, which has been in contact with both park districts, will provide a finalized report including an overview of how the property tax exchange agreement came about and the disjointedness of that agreement early next month, said Rachel Jones, executive officer of Alameda LAFCO.
Following LAFCO’s report, LARPD plans to send a letter to the agency requesting a study of the EBRPD’s spending in Murray Township and the annexation of the area.
At the commission’s meeting in October, they will also discuss possible options for how to move forward, according to Jones.
“These (disagreements) are what these studies are for and MSRs can highlight issues that have been overseen,” Jones told Livermore Vine. “I’m glad that we’re reviewing this and I think eventually, with the help of this report, we can come to a resolution.”
Following the cancellation of LAFCO’s meeting on Sept. 12, the next Alameda LAFCO session will be a special meeting on Oct. 11 at noon in the Dublin City Council Chambers.
