There aren't a whole lot of people in the Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District, which provides water and sewage services across much of rural North Monterey County. Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Board President Stephen Snodgrass estimates there are only about 1,500 hookups across the district.
But those few customers, and other local-government gadflies, might find the bureaucratic controversy that follows interesting.
This week's print edition includes a short article on pointing out that Pajaro/Sunny Mesa's board is appointed by the county supervisors, rather than elected by its customers (as most community services district boards in California are). The Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County (LAFCO) recently added more territory to Pajaro/Sunny Mesa, which makes more people eligible to serve on the district's board—but the annexation didn't change the fact that the district's ratepayers can't vote for those board seats.
The article quotes a 2009 letter from former district General Manager Joe Rosa, who alleges LAFCO made a mistake by giving Pajaro/Sunny Mesa an appointed board.
After the Weekly went to press, LAFCO Executive Officer Kate McKenna emailed to say she'd done more research, and could confidently argue it was no mistake: Pajaro/Sunny Mesa was intentionally, and appropriately, set up with an appointed board. Here's what she wrote:
Following is an outline of the facts in the LAFCO record. The facts do not support the 2009 letter’s assertion of a 1992 error in establishing the governance structure for the Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District. Decisions to consolidate several districts and form PSMCSD with an appointed board were made openly, in compliance with the law, and in accordance with the request of the predecessor district that applied for the consolidation. The LAFCO record is available for inspection upon request.
1. Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District was formed in 1992, resulting from LAFCO’s approval of a consolidation of three districts that previously existed: Pajaro Community Service District, Sunny Mesa County Water District, and County Service Area #73.
2. Each of the three districts was a willing participant in the consolidation. Pajaro Community Service District was the de facto “lead applicant” for the consolidation. In its 1991 resolution, requesting that LAFCO initiate the consolidation process, PCSD specifically requested that the newly formed PSMCSD have an appointed board of directors. At that time, California Government Code provided for Community Services Districts to be able to have either an elected or appointed boards of directors.
3. The 2009 Joe Rosa letter states that “When our agency was originally organized in 1984, our Board of Directors was elected by voters of the district.” The reference in this letter to “our agency” appears to be referring to Pajaro Community Service District, which did indeed have an elected board, but PCSD legally ceased existence in 1992 when the PSMCSD consolidation was approved (see #1, above) and it was PCSD itself that had requested that the newly formed PSMCSD have an appointed board (per #2, above).
4. The 2009 Joe Rosa letter also states “In 1992, due to a bureaucratic error that has never been corrected, Monterey County LAFCO, as part of a prior annexation application, caused our Board of Directors to be converted to become an appointed Board.” However, this assertion is incorrect in two different aspects.
Most importantly, the decision to convert from elected to appointed was not an error. It was clearly identified in the 1992 LAFCO resolution approving the PSMCSD, showing explicit intent, which would have been reviewed and understood by all involved parties at that time. It was also identified in the staff report leading up to that LAFCO approval resolution and, as noted in #2 and 3, above, was implemented at the request of the consolidating agencies themselves as expressed in the lead applicant’s (PCSD) resolution requesting consolidation and an appointed board. It was also allowed by law.
Establishing an elected governance structure at the outset of formation of the PSMCSD was done openly in 1992, and was not part of an annexation to PSMCSD.
5. As is always the case for special district consolidations, annexations, and formations, the 1992 consolidation of PSMCSD—and particularly issues of voting rights and representation—were reviewed by the U.S. Dept. of Justice, who responded with a letter indicating they had reviewed the approved consolidation (the LAFCO resolution for which included and documented the conversion of three districts to one district with an appointed board, as described above) and had no objections.
6. In the mid-2000s, changes to California Government Code provided that new Community Services Districts being formed in the future need to have elected, rather than appointed, board of directors. As part of the 2015 annexation to PSMCSD, LAFCO staff reviewed with legal counsel whether anything about an annexation to a CSD with an appointed board could somehow trigger a legal requirement to convert to an elected-board system. Our legal counsel confirmed that the elected-board requirement would be applicable only in the formation of a new CSD and was not applicable to an annexation.