Judge Rules in Favor of East Palo Alto’s Takeover of Troubled Sanitary District

A judge has given the city of East Palo Alto the green light to take control of the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, which had long been accused of mismanagement. The district had faced allegations of incompetence and poor handling of its operations for several years, sparking controversy within the local government and community.

The dispute escalated when the district appealed a decision by the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), which approved the city's takeover of the district. The East Palo Alto Sanitary District challenged the decision in court, hoping to overturn it.

However, Judge Roger T. Picquet ruled in favor of LAFCo and the city, stating that there was substantial evidence supporting the commission's decision to transfer control of the sanitary district. This ruling now paves the way for East Palo Alto to manage the district's operations moving forward.

The city has announced plans to hire the West Bay Sanitary District, based in Menlo Park, to handle the daily operations of the sanitary district. This partnership aims to ensure better management and address the issues that plagued the district under its previous leadership.

As a result of the takeover, it is expected that the county’s election office will cancel the upcoming November election for the sanitary district’s board. Initially, three of the five board seats were set to be contested. However, only the current holders of those seats had filed to run.

Among those running for the board were Kelly Fergusson, a former Menlo Park Councilwoman who was appointed to the district’s board, along with incumbents Betsy Yanez and Glenda Savage. Their candidacies are likely to be nullified due to the court ruling.

Board members Dennis Scherzer and Ofelia Bello, who were in the middle of their four-year terms, will lose their positions as a result of the takeover. Both Scherzer and Bello have opted to run for seats on the East Palo Alto City Council instead.

The city's justification for the takeover centered on accusations of mismanagement by the district. Officials argued that the district had imposed unpredictable and unreasonable connection fees and failed to cooperate on vital infrastructure financing.

In his ruling, Judge Picquet acknowledged the city's denial of the district's allegations that it would raise rates for residents. The city contends that it aims to maintain fairness in fees, rather than raise them to cover artificially low connection fees.

Opponents of the sanitary district have claimed that it had been inflating fees for developers in an effort to limit growth in East Palo Alto. This claim has fueled the debate over whether the district’s actions were intended to stifle development in the area.

Meanwhile, the district alleged that the city's efforts to take over were driven by developers seeking financial gain. It claimed that the takeover would allow developers to avoid paying legal fees associated with necessary infrastructure expansion. However, the judge sided with the city, allowing the transition to move forward.