The Cupertino Courier
Letters & Opinions
Rancho Rinconada special district should continue
By Steven Wesolowski
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) reviews all city and special district services every five years, to recommend possible savings and identify service overlaps. LAFCO's July Draft Review of Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District presented two options: "merge'' the district with Cupertino's Parks and Recreation Department, or continue as a Special District. If affected agencies agree change is beneficial, public hearings are held and those affected vote; in this case, district taxpayers. LAFCO does not "dissolve'' a district or city; their Service Reviews are advisory. Consult www.santaclara.lafco.ca.gov for more information.
In a Aug. 8 Courier article "Special district could be nixed by agency,'' also headlined "Decision Looms: County agency to decide the fate of Rancho Rinconada special district,'' LAFCO's analyst, Dunia Noel, was quoted, "There is a duplication of infrastructure. It's about the efficiency of public services, especially when two agencies provide the same service.'' I was quoted because I spoke in support of the district's continuance at LAFCO's Draft Service Review meeting Aug. 1 and presented written comments and corrections. For my response to LAFCO's review, e-mail pooltime@worldnet.att.net, but I will cite my main points. In LAFCO's Review I found no actual cost or infrastructure analyses to support (or refute) LAFCO's recommendation; no actual savings are given. In my response(s), I've said I find no measurable savings or significant cost differences with either option. As I said to Courier reporter D. Fong, if I believed our community would receive more or equal services for less funds by ANY change, I'd work to implement that change quickly. Every board member owns their home in the district: as taxpayers we also want the best use of the least tax dollars. If and when LAFCO or anyone identifies any actual cost savings, I'm certain we would act quickly, as we always have.
Unfortunately, LAFCO's Review process undervalues the importance and benefits of community involvement. Our feelings of "ownership'' of "our'' local park has inspired myself and many neighbors over 50-plus years to get involved and volunteer time and services to help create, maintain, and operate our district. During lean tax years, neighbors even volunteered to lifeguard and maintain our pool so neighbors could swim safely. Volunteers still donate their service, helping our district provide recreation not only for Cupertino residents, but also San Jose, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Campbell, and beyond. My review responses mention over 80 percent of current aquatics users live outside our district; I believe a majority always have.
Rancho Rinconada's park has provided clean, safe, mainly aquatic recreation for families, and has always welcomed everyone since 1956. I also observed the "Zero Sphere of Influence" Review finding, cited as a reason why the district should not exist, is misleading. I think our "Actual Sphere of Influence" is the district's actual user base, which extends far beyond city boundaries.
There is another benefit of neighborhood "ownership.'' Some weeks ago I called the Sheriff to report some annoying vandalism: greased pool cover reel handles. The officer observed our park is rarely vandalized, maybe because our neighbors watch and call the Sheriff for any "suspicious" activity. If our park became another city park, our city could manage and manage it, but our neighborhood pride, watchfulness and volunteering may lessen over time, increasingly replaced by paid labor, at additional cost.
However, my words and those in LAFCO's Review are rather moot: neither our city or our district is interested in a change. I know our city's elected leaders, employees, and citizens recognize neighborhood involvement sustains and grows our community. And, if it isn't broke, why fix it?
Steven Wesolowski is a board member of the Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District
