Correction 09-20-2026:
After getting some feedback, having more conversations and reviewing the specific language of the Administrator levy (which I apologize for not doing prior to writing the first version of the article) I’ve come to look at the issue somewhat differently. Below is my perspective. As yet the perspective of the District lawyer has not been distributed. I’m curious how they weigh in.
In many ways, the levy works like a school levy. Everyone within the taxing district pays it, even though everyone may not receive the same direct benefit from what the tax pays for.
The same is true here. An owner of an undeveloped property with no water or sewer connection still pays the Administrator levy, even though they may receive little or no direct benefit from the Administrator’s work during the two years of the levy. Cannon View Park property owners receive sanitary service but not water service, so they receive some of the benefit. Properties receiving both water and sanitary service receive the benefit of the Administrator’s work for both districts.
The ballot measure was actually pretty clear about this. It told voters that the Sanitary District serves 355 customers while the Water District serves 305 of those customers, and that the Administrator would work for both districts. The explanatory statement went a step further, explaining that rather than putting separate measures before Water and Sanitary District voters, a single levy was being proposed by the Sanitary District to fund an Administrator serving both districts.
So when voters approved the levy, they knew that not everyone paying the Sanitary District tax was also a Water District customer.
The levy wasn’t written to adjust what each property pays based on how much benefit that property receives. It applies the same tax rate of $0.643 per $1,000 of assessed value to property throughout the Sanitary District.
Given all this, I now think refunding the tax to one group of property owners because they receive fewer District services would be inconsistent with the way the levy was presented to voters and approved. Looking back, I wish I had helped write the levy differently so that this situation had been addressed more clearly from the beginning. I didn’t. So I think we have to deal with the levy as it was actually written, presented to voters, and approved.
2 responses to “Correction to Article about CVP Refund Request”
This is not my issue as I live in Cove Beach but I’m curious how much is really at stake here between the two groups. If the 50 Cannon View Park owners didn’t pay for the water district how much would they actually save per $100,000 (don’t use the standard fractional cost per $1000 as it is too small to be meaningful) and conversely how much more the rest of the 305 members would pay.Allan Solares
LikeLike
Hello Allan, The amount of tax paid by CVP residents can be determined by finding the assessed value of each CVP property for each of two years, summing those amounts, multiply it by the tax rate for each $1000 of value and take 47% of that (water district share of the Administrator) That amount could be evenly divided by the number of water district rate payers. It’s a bit of work to do and I wonder about the value in doing the work since a refund does not appear to be consistent with the intent of the levy. But the lawyers interpretation may require that piece of work. Bill
LikeLike